Marco Cimarosti wrote:

>
> Part of this discrepancy may be due to different perspectives, i.e.
> different reasons for counting. E.g., it doesn't make sense to consider
> katakana and hiragana as two separate "scripts", apart the fact that they
> are encoded in two different "blocks" in Unicode.

I don't normally chime in because, eventhough I find alot of the
conversation quite facinating, it is usually slightly over my head.
However, your perspective must be from a language point of view if you say
that hiragana and katakana are not separate scripts, you have never studied
Japanese writing. Eventhough they both originated as a shorted form of
certain Chinese characters. They are quite different and eventhough they are
quite interchanable have completly different usages. And from a language
perspective, this would be like saying that the roman script and shorthand
are not separate scripts. Which brings me to, in all the discussion, I saw
no mention of Greggs Shorthand. I would consider this a script. It is still
in common use and it is still being taught in many schools. I guess that
might be somewhat of the difference in using the word "script" vs. "writing
system"

jmho,

Scott

--
ki kara saru mo ochiru.
(even monkeys fall from trees)

http://www.awes.com/hp/kuma