Michael Everson wrote:
>
> At 08:36 -0400 2003-09-15, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >Then perhaps the engineers ought to look at the real world sometime. You
> >could call the overall thing the "Islamic script," for instance.
>
> Your own book has a chapter called "Arabic writing" not "Islamic
> writing" and "Adaptations of Arabic script" not "Adaptations of
> Islamic script".

Indeed they are adaptations of Arabic script. They are not subsets of
Arabic script.

> > > By the above definitions, it is the English alphabet which is a subset of
> > > the Latin script:
> >
> >Nope; English has j, v, and w, Latin doesn't.
>
> So what? There are many extensions to the Latin script. Thorn is one.
> Eng is another.
>
> >You could call the overall thing the "Roman script," for instance.
>
> That term was not chosen because it is more commonly used as a style
> distinction: Roman vs Italic.
>
> >It's not English, it's Latin. Latin doesn't distinguish u and v, so you
> >would probably say Ca O Er U U Es.
>
> CE, not CA. CA = K.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...