Peter_Constable@... wrote:

>
> 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,

It doesn't, but never mind.

> 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.

That's a big If.

> 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.

Then why do you keep nagging _me_ about it?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...