Re: script count?

Michael Everson wrote:

>
> At 08:53 -0500 2003-12-11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >cowan@... wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter T. Daniels scripsit:
> >>
> >> > Just the other day I had occasion to draw up a list of (1), and the
> >> > total is ca. 32 (depending where you draw the line).
> >>
> >> The Roadmap makes it 52:
> >
> >What's "the Roadmap," and on what basis is this or that item included in
> >the list or not?
>
> http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/ "These pages present proportional
> maps of actual and proposed allocations to Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646."
>
> >It omits Syriac
>
> No it doesn't.

Which of the 52 names that were posted do you claim stands for Syriac?

> >and (apparently) Chinese,
>
> No it doesn't. It lists CJK Unified Ideographs.

No, it doesn't.

> >and lists Japanese three times
> >(Han "ideographs," hiragana, katakana),
>
> It doesn't. It doesn't list "Japanese" at all.

No, it lists three separate "scripts" that together constitute most of
the Japanese writing system.

> >puts a country name ("Myanmar") for a language/script name,
>
> At the request of the National Standards organization of the Union of
> Myanmar. Many of us didn't like that, but that's the name which was
> approved for the standard.
>
> >lists at least one auxiliary phonetic system (Bopomofo)
>
> Bopomofo is a script of its own.
>
> >but not another (IPA),
>
> IPA is the Latin script with extensions.

The more you tell me about Unicode (never mind this ridiculous "Roadmap"
thing), the more cockamamie it seems.

> >includes quite a few that are marginal at best and probably fully
> >obsolete -- in short, what's "the Roadmap"?
>
> It is a map of actual and proposed allocations to the Universal
> Character Set. It is an aid to the technical work of enabling people
> to write the world's writing systems with computers.

Why is it called "Roadmap"? Did you come up with that before or after
the latest Mideast Peace Proposal with the same name?

> > > In addition, the status of Blissymbolics, Sutton Signwriting,and Braille
> >> is debatable.
> >
> >They're "scripts"?
>
> They are ordered collections of graphic elements used to convey human
> language in writing. Indeed they are worthy of study.

Is that your definition of "script"? What language does Blissymbolics
convey? What language does Braille convey?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...