[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 11:17 AM on Friday, November 15, 2002:
>So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
>completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use a
>single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across languages
>but not across scripts -- to imply that we need to encode new characters,
>Latin delta, Latin theta and Latin yeru? Or, do we say that this writing
>system is only *mostly* Latin-based, and that it mixes in a few characters
>from other scripts?
To look at the question another way:
What if groups A and B have exactly the same lowercase graphemic
inventory, let's say {a, c, m, e}, but exhibit the following disparate
properties:
Group A writes the logically ordered graphemic sequence *acme* as "acme";
group B as "emca".
Group A pronounces the graphemic sequence "acme" as /acme/; group B as /stoi/.
Group A uppercases the graphemic sequence "acme" as "ACME"; group B as
"acme" (i.e., no uppercase).
Group A ligates the sequence "acme" as "a" + "cme"; group B as "ac" + "me".
Should these be two separate encodings? Why or why not? What are the
MINIMAL triggers for separateness of encoding?
The answers to these questions bear directly on your question.
[I too have my own ideas about this, but will also be coy while awaiting
responses. This is a test :-) ]
Respectfully,
Dean A. Snyder
Scholarly Technology Specialist
Center For Scholarly Resources, Sheridan Libraries
Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
office: 410 516-6850 mobile: 410 245-7168 fax: 410-516-6229
Digital Hammurabi: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi
Initiative for Cuneiform Encoding: www.jhu.edu/ice
