[Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]
everson at evertype.com
Thu Apr 10 10:13:14 CEST 2003
At 22:14 -0400 2003-04-09, John Cowan wrote:
>Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
>> This is clearly insufficient as a *definition* of a script.
>> It applies equally well to an alphabet, for example.
>Complain to ME, not me. I was presuming that when a standard defines a
>term, the use of the term in the standard is per the definition.
The standard was written by a committee. The standard makes use of
scripts and script variants. You are welcome to propose clearer
definitions for a future edition.... Anyway the script definition was
simply lifted from 10646, where Hans and Hant are unified as
> > This would apply to English written in IPA for most English
>> speakers. That doesn't make IPA a distinct script.
>As you may remember, I've always thought that IPA was not Latin script,
>even if IPA characters are borrowed into Latin script occasionally.
>For one thing, IPA is caseless.
Yes, but you'd be wrong. IPA is a special use of Latin, but it's
still Latin. (I wish that letters like THETA were cloned though).
> > This does not apply to the Chinese case, which is a deliberate
>> orthographic reform *of* the writing system, but a reform
>> which doesn't change anything fundamental about the script
>> except the conventional shapes used for many characters.
>The only difference between the English alphabet and the pig-pen
>(aka Masonic) cipher is the "conventional shapes used for many
But not a reform *of* the writing system. :-)
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages