I fear that all this talk of signifiers and signifieds (a very un-English construction, that "signifieds") misses the point of ciphers. A cipher of the relevant type (a "substitution cipher", technically) is a mapping of the usual symbols in a text or set of texts to other symbols WITH THE INTENT OF SECRECY. That is why Theban is a cipher, and so is the venerable "pig-pen", and Masonic Samaritan; but the ecclesiastical use of Samaritan is not, nor are
But you can't make a solid case for rejecting encoding of a cipher on the basis of 'the intent of secrecy'. What about ciphers that are developed without the intent of secrecy? Would you encode those? What about non-cipher scripts developed with the intent of secrecy -- e.g. traditional women's scripts, or initiate scripts for ceremonial languages -- would you reject those?
Philippe's suggestion of displaying Tifinagh characters with Latin glyphs is not with the intent of secrecy, but it is still employing Latin as a cipher of Tifinagh. So I don't think I've missed the point of ciphers at all: a cipher is a particular sign arrangement in which one set of signifiers is substituted for another; the intent is irrelevant.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I sometimes think that good readers are as singular,
and as awesome, as great authors themselves.
- JL Borges
