Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?

--000000000000ac545c0653268034
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Like why Coptic eventually got disunified from Greek despite the ease of
transliteration between the two?

- Vikki McDonough =F0=9F=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A=A7=EF=B8=8F

On Sun, May 31, 2026, 12:28=E2=80=AFPM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <
[email protected]> wrote:

> On 5/28/26 2:35 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote:
> > Sure but Teyvat Script is, as you seem to have said, is 1 to 1 with
> > latin. So it has no need to be encoded in the first place. These other
> > scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar, Cirth, Sarati) don't have that.
>
> Being easily transliterated does not necessarily mean a script has no
> identity or need to be encoded.  There was the huge fuss years ago about
> the 22-letter Phonecian abjad and whether we should encode Aramaic and
> Palmyrene and Samaritan and who knows what else, or if everyone should
> just make do with (square) Hebrew.  Scripts are different when they're
> different; the fact that one maps to another doesn't make them the same
> script. (Otherwise, I'll argue to deprecate just about all of Unicode,
> except for CJK, since after all, we can always make do with font tricks
> and alternate font pages.  Oh wait, we did just that with ISO-8859).
>
> Not to say that *every* alternate alphabet needs its own encoding.
> There are such things as fonts and typefaces and all; we don't need
> Fraktur to have its own encoding (yeah, yeah, Mathematical letters
> grumble...)  But a simple map does not make alphabets identical.
>
> ~mark
>

--000000000000ac545c0653268034
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br></div><div>Like why Coptic eventually got disuni=
fied from Greek despite the ease of transliteration between the two?</div><=
div data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div>- Vi=
kki McDonough =F0=9F=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A=A7=EF=B8=8F</div></div><=
/div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, May 31, 2026, 12:28=E2=80=AFPM Mark E. Shoulso=
n via Unicode &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">unicode@corp.=
unicode.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 5/28/=
26 2:35 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote:<br>
&gt; Sure but Teyvat Script is, as you seem to have said, is 1 to 1 with <b=
r>
&gt; latin. So it has no need to be encoded=C2=A0in the first place. These =
other <br>
&gt; scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar, Cirth, Sarati) don&#39;t have that.<br>
<br>
Being easily transliterated does not necessarily mean a script has no <br>
identity or need to be encoded.=C2=A0 There was the huge fuss years ago abo=
ut <br>
the 22-letter Phonecian abjad and whether we should encode Aramaic and <br>
Palmyrene and Samaritan and who knows what else, or if everyone should <br>
just make do with (square) Hebrew.=C2=A0 Scripts are different when they&#3=
9;re <br>
different; the fact that one maps to another doesn&#39;t make them the same=
 <br>
script. (Otherwise, I&#39;ll argue to deprecate just about all of Unicode, =
<br>
except for CJK, since after all, we can always make do with font tricks <br=
>
and alternate font pages.=C2=A0 Oh wait, we did just that with ISO-8859).<b=
r>
<br>
Not to say that *every* alternate alphabet needs its own encoding.=C2=A0 <b=
r>
There are such things as fonts and typefaces and all; we don&#39;t need <br=
>
Fraktur to have its own encoding (yeah, yeah, Mathematical letters <br>
grumble...)=C2=A0 But a simple map does not make alphabets identical.<br>
<br>
~mark<br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000ac545c0653268034--