On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:10:49 -0800, "Doug Ewell" wrote: > > I don't think the "secrecy" criterion is sufficient to qualify a writing > system as a cipher (whether it is necessary is another question). N�sh� > (sp?) was developed primarily for secrecy, if I'm not mistaken, and I > doubt anyone would regard it as a cipher.
On the contrary, if N�shu glyph A has the same pronunciation and semantics as Han ideograph B, and the N�shu script is just a set of glyphs that have a one-to-one mapping to standard Han ideographs, then surely N�shu really is no more than a cipher ? Andrew
