* Mark E. Shoulson
| Visible Speech just doesn't get the coverage it deserves... Well,
| when we can get it into Unicode, we'll have something to start with.

I've added it to my site now, in case that makes you happier. :)

| [Blissymbolics]
| Should it be [added to LMG's site]?

To be perfectly honest, I am not sure. It seems to me a very
borderline thing, in that it doesn't appear to represent any specific
spoken language, and yet it does communicate meaning. To me it sounds
like a graphic language, as opposed to a method to write a spoken

Adding Blissymbolics to my topic map would be quite difficult, because
it would require extending the ontology enough to be able to describe
it. I'd probably need a new script type (and have to debate with
myself whether or not it really is a script type), and also a new
category of scripts, etc

So far I've avoided the problem and instead tried to spend the little
time I have for this on scripts I know are scripts and know how to

| [IPA]
| And I'd have considered it an extended use of Latin, actually.

I agree with Daniels here: the intended use for the IPA is different
from that of Latin. IPA is meant to be used to communicate details of
pronunciation, whereas Latin is meant to communicate language. There
is a shared subset of symbols, but that doesn't make them the same

I find the way IPA is used in practice quite revealing: dictionaries
and encyclopedias etc switch between Latin and IPA. It's quite clear
what is written in IPA, and what is written in Latin, and even if some
characters are shared, they must be interpreted differently depending
on which script they appear in. (Latin "a" and IPA "a" are not
pronounced the same in an English dictionary.)

So to me it seems quite obvious that there are different scripts,
where one is a natural script and the other a phonetic script. That
doesn't mean I'd argue that Unicode should consider them different
scripts, or allocate a separate code point for IPA "a".

| [ITA/Unifon]
| Those are... um... modifications of Latin? Modified enough to be
| "different"? Probably, yeah. They're not just special fonts.

I don't know. I could learn and form my own opinion, but it would take
too much time right now.

| A great many issues can be resolved if the underlying definition is
| spelled out. Naturally, that causes its own problems, as there will
| always be fights about the definition, and there probably isn't one
| that's going to satisfy everyone. But yeah, defining your terms will
| help.

Not only will it help; I think it's the only way to really get an
answer, because if you don't define what you're counting you don't
know what the answer means. It'll be like "42" being the answer to
"the question about life, the universe, and everything".

Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >