--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "suzmccarth" <suzmccarth@...> wrote:
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:

> It seems only equitable, however, that the Vai should be able, as
> the English are, to sit down and keyboard their own set of visual
> glyphs, transferring a visual image from mind to screen.

I'm not sure about that. If they have cultivated their own script to
be different, perhaps they should bear the cost. While I agree with
the goal, I don't think equity comes into it.

> It seems equitable also that they should have an input method that
> requires them to choose a glyph from the set they are familiar with
> and not the 'superset'.

I would argue that if there is only one method, it is better to
provide the full set. It's probably better to be forced to look
sophisticated than to be forced to look uneducated.

> While Richard W. has shown us the Bible, and it may well be that
> Bible uses the full set,

No more than 220 if they used the SIL font, as they seem to have done.

I'm intrigued to know the background to the characters in the SIL set
that aren't supported by the associated keyboard. Were they needed
for the Bible?

> like Cree there is a whole other world,
> less visible, of unpublished text where the Vai use their own
> orthography and write as they choose.
> If there is in fact a dual orthography this should be understood
> not compared to our expectations of one standardized orthography?

Does anyone know how standard the reduced set is?