Michael Everson scripsit: > >The two letters share not a single formal feature. > > Yes they do. The ring and ear of the top part of a Times g are > equivalent to the flat line of the Insular g, and the bottom part is > the same for both, give or take loopiness.
You can find a similar mapping from "t" to "T" as well, and nobody calls that a font difference. Similarly, I can read texts with a long s, but not ones in which f has been falsely substituted for it -- it quickly becomes infuriating. See http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk3ch23.htm and weep. > >We disunify Glagolitic, and rightly so too. But that does not mean > >that there are not intermediate cases that ought to be unified, and > >without definite criteria, it's hard to know what to do. > > Just grok them? :-) Nope, won't work. > >Disunification of whole scripts (using that word without prejudice) I meant non-unification. > When we get to encoding Samaritan, I guess the proposal will stand by > itself or not. Not if there are no criteria to judge it on that are better than "See, it's obvious!" -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam. Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam. --Ogden Nash, _No Doctors Today, Thank You_
