On 11/12/2001 06:09:33 AM "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:

>But there _isn't_ any limit on the range of varieties or what they can
>potentially be like, because they are the products of human imagination

That argument applies as equally to a synchronic classification of scripts
based on their properties as it does to your typology based on history,
and fortunately for both of us it applies not at all: it is no more an
argument against the merits of either approach to typing / classifying
than it is an argument against the Republican tax cut. If the full range
of varieties, limited or unlimited, can all be characterised in terms of a
fixed set of types defined on a certain basis against which each is found
to be a good or not-so-good representative, there is yet *a dimension* of
variation that is limited in it's extent, even if the objects may fall at
an infinite number of points along that dimension or may be unbounded with
respect to some other dimension.

More to the point, though, I have suggested reasons why someone might be
interested in a comparisonof scripts based on synchronic properties, and
you have not shown all of those reasons to be invalid. I hope you will
concede, then, that there's nothing wrong with others wanting to pursue
that endeavour even if it holds no interest for you.




- 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@...>