At 19:22 -0500 2003-12-12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>John Hudson wrote:
> > For me, these subsets of signs are respectively the Latin alphabet and the
>> English alphabet. You appear to be using script as a generic term,
>> interchangeable with any of the more precise terms alphabet, syllabery,
>> abugida, etc.; whereas I, and I suspect various other people in this
>> discussion, would be more inclined to use the term 'writing system' in this
>> generic way (the Latin writing systems = the Latin alphabet), and reserve
>> the term script for the superset of signs from which particular writing
>> systems are derived. I've found this usage useful, and obviously others
>> have as well; if you have a better terminology that describes the
>> relationship of the particular to the general in this way, please tell us.
>Why would I use a term for something that doesn't need to be referred to?

Lots of people who have to or want to actually use these things do
find it useful and necessary to have terms to describe them.
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *