At 01:57 PM 11/10/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
Define "cypher", or "cipher", and I will either provide evidence that the Theban script is not one or accept that, on your definition, it is one. In the absence of a definition this discussion is meaningless. Similarly if the definition is simply a whim as you implied, so a personal subjective choice against which there can be no evidence. Was it a whim that Theban and Klingon were rejected?
There is a lot of philosophical ground between a 'whim' and something that is so clearly defined that it engenders no debate. I think a definition of cipher that focuses on a deliberate representation of a language with a set of signs that is different from that which is the conventional representation of the language by the vast majority of its users is sufficient. ...
OK, let's use this as a tentative working definition. But first we need to clarify: how vast is a vast majority? As a hypothetical (I think) example, suppose that a community of 100 Chinese-speaking Jews is found which writes Chinese in Hebrew script, mainly for liturgical and religious purposes. Quite a tiny majority of the users of Chinese. Is this using Hebrew script as a cipher (obviously not one-to-one!) for Chinese? Or is it a recognised use of a different script? Then, how is the use of Theban script different?
... A working definition doesn't need to eliminate all grey areas: it is useful enough if it identifies what the grey areas are. ...
OK. But there is no grey area between being in Unicode and not being in it, except I suppose being roadmapped for possible future inclusion.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
