suzmccarth wrote:

>I quote from that page,
>
>"The Korean Hangul writing system is a borderline case, since the
>time, place, sponsor, and general conditions of its invention are
>well known, but not the exact names of the people who developed it."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_script
>
>As I said, Hangul is a borderline case. Oddly, Cree Syllabics
>doesn't make it onto the artiicial scripts page although it is
>devised by a specifically known individual, and it has no greater
>validity than Cherokee or the Pollard script, which are mentioned.
>There seems to be a continuum. This page does not make clear the
>difference between a 'natural' script and an artificial script.
>After all scripts are not like languages, they are *all* artefacts
>of human culture.
>
>What was it that I did not read? I simply remarked that Hangul was
>on that page and surely we wouldn't use that as criteria for not
>encoding it.
>
>

I think what you didn't read was what Michael was saying. A script's
being "constructed" is *not* a barrier to being encoded. As you point
out, Cherokee is encoded, and Syllabics, and even Tengwar and Cirth.
And of course, all scripts are "artificial" in the sense of being
invented by people (same problem with so-called "natural" languages:
they were invented by people too.) Michael never said that constructed
scripts should not be encoded. He did accurately classify Mandombe as a
constructed script, though. Where Mandombe fails, Michael claims, is
the "use test": has it seen sufficient widespread use? I know zilch
about Mandombe, so I can't speak to the accuracy of any answer to that
question, but that is the question that matters, not "did someone invent
this?"

Don't argue the claims someone isn't making...

~mark