* Jarkko Hietaniemi | | You may consider trying to classify the artificial scripts a bit | more. For example I *think* (I'm a bit rusty on my Elvish) that for | Tengwar would be either Abjad (like Hebrew), or maybe Featural (like | Hangul), and Cirth would be Alphabet (like Runic).
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Alternatively, you may consider moving the "artificial" | classification to a subcategory inside the main categories | (alphabet, abjad, syllabary, etc.), That would mean mixing things up, actually. The categories are defined by the descendant relationships of the scripts, and how they came into being. For this reason the semitic category, for example, mixes together alphabets, abjads, and abugidas, because they have a common ancestry. The distinction between alphabets, abjads, and so on is a typology, and therefore based on the features of each script with no regard to their historical background. To mix the "artificial" category in with the different types of scripts would thus break the ontology by making it inconsistent. All the "artificial" scripts have their types already, and artificiality is not a type. | or even doing away with the distinction altogether. That might of course being a possibility, but it is not to be denied that there is a commonality between Cirth, Deseret, Geyinzi, Jindaj Moji, Shavian, Tengwar, and Utopian. This commonality is not captured by the name of the category (as I've already admitted), but I can think of no better alternative. I feel that it is useful to have a single category for the scripts that have never come into full use, and to keep them separate from the scripts that have. To put it another way: wouldn't it look strange to see Shavian included in the Greek script family? Shavian has no relationship with the Greek alphabet or the other scripts in that family. It is far more like a shorthand than an alphabet. | *All* scripts are man-made and thus "artificial" in a sense. [...] I'm well aware of this (as I've already stated), but that is not the criterion by which these scripts are distinguished. In fact, the page on artificial scripts states the intent fairly clearly: "Artificial scripts are scripts created for artificial or fictional languages, or which have never seen use as the primary script for a language community." If you can think of a better name for this category I'd be very happy to hear it. | Cyrillic was created as [...] | | Even Tengwar and Cirth, [...] You are clearly right about both of these things, but what that means is not nearly as clear. If you want to argue that the category artificial script is more artificial than the scripts contained in it you are of course right in that, but all the categories are to some extent artificial. Look at "SE Asian scripts" and "Insular scripts of SE-Asia", for example. How "real" is that categorization? Similarly, how "real" is the "Aramaic script family"? To the best of my knowledge, all of these were created by me. In fact, the category system is one of the things I'd most like feedback on. Do these categories make sense? Are there better ways of arranging these scripts? And what about the scripts which have no categories? Can any be assigned to existing categories? Should new categories be created for some of them? If so, which? --Lars M.
