Doug Ewell recently said: > The closest I can come is something like "a script that was invented, > generally by one person and in a relatively short period of time, rather > than evolving from existing scripts in a gradual and progressive > manner." > > But right away that definition includes not only Shavian, Tengwar, > Cirth, Klingon, and most of the contents of ConScript, but also > Ethiopic, Cherokee, Canadian Syllabics, Gothic, Deseret, and maybe Yi > Syllabics, all of which are already encoded in Unicode. [snip] > I still believe that separating writing systems into a "natural" or > "real" category and an "artificial" or "fictional" or "synthetic" > category is much less straightforward than those labels imply.
If I went to a community whose language doesn't have a written form and convinced them that Tengwar would be an ideal way of recording their culture, would that make Tengwar more legitimate? Or cause people to regard it as a higher priority? Tim -- Tim Partridge. Any opinions expressed are mine only and not those of my employer
