Re: script count?

Scott Sullivan wrote:

>
> Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> >
> > Part of this discrepancy may be due to different perspectives, i.e.
> > different reasons for counting. E.g., it doesn't make sense to consider
> > katakana and hiragana as two separate "scripts", apart the fact that they
> > are encoded in two different "blocks" in Unicode.
>
> I don't normally chime in because, eventhough I find alot of the
> conversation quite facinating, it is usually slightly over my head.
> However, your perspective must be from a language point of view if you say
> that hiragana and katakana are not separate scripts, you have never studied
> Japanese writing.

This involves nothing but a very strange definition of "script." No one
denies that there are four or more components of the Japanese writing
system, each with its own function. But to call the components "scripts"
is nothing short of bizarre.

> Eventhough they both originated as a shorted form of
> certain Chinese characters. They are quite different and eventhough they are
> quite interchanable have completly different usages.

Strange use of "interchangeable," too, but fortunately it's not a
technical term.

> And from a language
> perspective, this would be like saying that the roman script and shorthand
> are not separate scripts.

It's not even similar, let alone "like."

> Which brings me to, in all the discussion, I saw
> no mention of Greggs Shorthand. I would consider this a script. It is still
> in common use and it is still being taught in many schools. I guess that
> might be somewhat of the difference in using the word "script" vs. "writing
> system"

Is there much call for typing in Gregg on a computer?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...