Transliteration--Re: Gallows G characters

[Jacques Guy <jguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

02/03/02 16:47:31, "John Grove" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Glen,
>
>It's been so long since I've looked back at the charts to compare
>Currier-et-al versions. I vaguely remember not liking them because of
>inconsistencies in how they were applied and sought a new 'clearer'
>transliteration.  With EVA, we can build a single character if that's what
>we want to call it - while others who don't see the 'same' character we see
>aren't forced to adhere to our belief that the character is split or joined
>at certain points...

Yes. Arguing against EVA on the basis that some obvious letters
are represented by two or more, e.g. <in>, <iin>, <ee> which are
very likely single letters, is like writing Spanish using the Czech
alphabet because Spanish ch takes only one letter in Czech. Spanish
or Polish (sz, cz). Or Hungarian (sz, zs, gy, cs). Or German
(ch, sch, ss). Or Greek (where e, ai = e; i, u, <eta>, oi, ui, ei = i;
mp = b; nt = d). And I'll leave aside French and Gaelic. And English
(ee, oo, ng, sh, th...). Litmus test: image that English is an 
unknown language that remains to be deciphered. How do you transcribe
"knighthood"?