On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:05:57 +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>

>On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 03:15:17 -0500, Alex Fink wrote:
>It reminds me a bit of Maimieux's Pasigraphie, (which doesn't
>use digits, but a small set of basic symbols that look more
>like digits than letters, with diacritics), from the overall
>visual appearance, but that isn't quite the thing, I guess.

I can't google up much good information about Maimieux's pasigraphie. 
What's it like?

>> Hints (perhaps): I didn't feel like making this read RtL as arguably it
>> should have, and I've also omitted a bunch of superscript circles to reduce
>> clutter.  [...]
>Hmmmm - lots of diacritics including lots of superscript circles,
>and written right to left?  That sounds a lot like Arabic, but
>your script doesn't resemble that much.

Not Arabic, no, but you're within striking distance: the script in question,
and those features in particular, were definitely formed under Arabic