Like why Coptic eventually got disunified from Greek despite the ease of transliteration between the two?
- Vikki McDonough 🏳️⚧️ On Sun, May 31, 2026, 12:28 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode < [email protected]> wrote: > On 5/28/26 2:35 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote: > > Sure but Teyvat Script is, as you seem to have said, is 1 to 1 with > > latin. So it has no need to be encoded in the first place. These other > > scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar, Cirth, Sarati) don't have that. > > Being easily transliterated does not necessarily mean a script has no > identity or need to be encoded. There was the huge fuss years ago about > the 22-letter Phonecian abjad and whether we should encode Aramaic and > Palmyrene and Samaritan and who knows what else, or if everyone should > just make do with (square) Hebrew. Scripts are different when they're > different; the fact that one maps to another doesn't make them the same > script. (Otherwise, I'll argue to deprecate just about all of Unicode, > except for CJK, since after all, we can always make do with font tricks > and alternate font pages. Oh wait, we did just that with ISO-8859). > > Not to say that *every* alternate alphabet needs its own encoding. > There are such things as fonts and typefaces and all; we don't need > Fraktur to have its own encoding (yeah, yeah, Mathematical letters > grumble...) But a simple map does not make alphabets identical. > > ~mark >
