This strikes me as rather strange. I know "interpreted" and "script" are used interchangeably now, but it seems to me the idea of a script is that it is a human-readable code. Like the script of a play.

If, from the user's point-of-view, the human-readable code appears to be executed, you have a scripting language. Take the most common form of Perl: a text file which appears to be run as a binary. Even though it's really being compiled into bytecode and interpreted at runtime, it looks like the human-readable code is being executed. In other words, compile and run are one step.

"Interpreted" is like Java -- the command you execute is a file containing bytecodes which are not human-readable. But those bytecodes are interpreted into native machine code at execute time.

"Compiled" is like most C programs -- the command you execute contains the machine code.

Perl is primarily a scripting language, but since you can compile into bytecode using pp or similar, it is really an interpreted language as well. Overlapping is allowed, you know...

Yeah, there's plenty to debate about those definitions: there will be for any definition. But, the above create divisions which are helpful for knowing what someone means -- when I say "I wrote a script", I mean that the source is the program, and that's how it will be distributed.