Michael Everson scripsit:
> >Latg is older than the current use of Latn, though not than Latn's
> >ancestor.
>
> You're wrong. Latg is older than Latc (Carolingian) but it is not a
> separate script.
VVELLIFYOVCOVNTANCIENTROMANSTYLEASORDINARYLATINSCRIPTTHENYES.
> >Some Latg characters are hard to identify if all you know is Latn.
> >But we don't encode them separately.
>
> Thorn and Wynn and Gha and Ou and Ezh and lots of other Latin letters
> are hard to identify if all you know is Latn.
If I don't know Gha, and I see it, I know I don't recognize it: it's a
novel letter. (And I may even think it says "OI".) If I see a Gaelic-style
G and fail to recognize it *as* a G, that's quite different.
> > > And the Samaritan Pentateuch is often printed in the Samaritan script.
> >
> >A font difference would handle that.
>
> Naaaah.
Even now that German uses Antiqua almost exclusively, you might find a
Lutherbibel printed recently in Fraktur.
> >mutual
> >intelligibility, which was the main criterion for separating Glagolitic
> >from Cyrillic.
>
> I don't think it was. Glagolitic and Cyrillic are obviously two
> different scripts.
>From UTR #3:
# In the encoding, Glagolitic is treated as a separate script from
# Cyrillic, principally because the letter shapes are in most cases
# totally unrelated, with differences not at all arising from "mere
# font style".
And from p. 171 (section 7.3) of TUS 3.0:
# The Unicode standard regards Glagolitic as a *separate* script from
# Cyrillic, not as a font change from Cyrillic. This position is taken
# primarily because Glagolitic appears unrecognizably different from
# Cyrillic, and secondarily because Glagolitic has not grown to match
# the expansion of Cyrillic.
> that no one who was could easily read a newspaper article written in
> Phoenician or Samaritan letters.
Here's where we need first-hand testimony.
--
After fixing the Y2K bug in an application: John Cowan
WELCOME TO <censored> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
