On 11/11/2001 04:35:50 PM "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:

>> 23 Modern syriac,
>> 37 Thaana,

>Doubtful: 23 and 37 (both the same; would Bill call them
>alphasyllabaries?)

Syriac and Thaana are not the same.

>> | Has anyone tried to create a classification of scripts?
>>
>> * Peter T. Daniels
>> |
>> | As I said, it would be trivial. (Historically speaking.) Every
>> | history of writing from Taylor's on contains a classification or
>> | historical pedigree/dendrogram.
>>
>> Well, to me those are completely different things. Are there any
>> classifications of scripts that are not historically based, but only
>> based on the properties of the scripts?
>
>I doubt it. Why bother?

Because some people are interested in doing so since, to them, it seems
like a worthwhile intellectual exercise.

>But -- what's the point of all this "classifying"?

Why has anyone ever classified anything? To gain a better understanding of
the set of objects or phenomena being analysed.



- Peter


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@...>