On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 08:11:51AM -0800, Ayers, Mike wrote: > Besides, does anyone > really believe that alphabetic writers would decide that they'd rather learn > thousands of glyphs? We're getting deeply fictional here... All it would take is some small dictator-run communist country whose dictator wakes up one day 'realizing' that the alphabet is a tool of the western imperalistic dogs and decreeing that an ideographic script is the way to go. In any case, from what Chan mentioned and one of the webpages he linked to, NEC is no more ideographic than Hangul is - it's an alphabetic script written with many letters in one ideographic square in a Chinese style. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Kenneth Whistler
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Curtis Clark
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Joel Rees
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Joel Rees
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Peter_Constable
- Re: fictional scripts revisited John H. Jenkins
- RE: fictional scripts revisited Ayers, Mike
- RE: fictional scripts revisited Daniel Biddle
- Re: fictional scripts revisited David Starner
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Curtis Clark
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Peter_Constable
- RE: fictional scripts revisited Christopher John Fynn
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Joel Rees
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Joel Rees
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Michael Everson
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Peter_Constable
- Re: fictional scripts revisited Peter_Constable

