Re: Why Fraktur is irrelevant (was RE: Fraktur Legibility (was Re:Response to Everson Phoenician)
On 26/05/2004 13:25, Rick McGowan wrote: Personally speaking, at this juncture, I usually yawn and hit the delete button when I see the word "Phoenician" on this list. The discussion has gone way past any sane argument. However, Peter Kirk asked a question to which I have a response. ... we need to ask a more general question: should the UTC encode scripts for which there is a (small, in this case) demand but no technical justification? Do you even have to ask this question? If so, I have to think you haven't been listening at all. There are technical justifications for the encoding, but you are either failing to listen to them, or are refusing to believe that some of the justifications are technical. I will not repeat any arguments here, I've really had enough Phoenician. Rick, or anyone, maybe I have simply forgotten some of the issues because there has been so much noise. But I can honestly remember only one *technical* justification which has been put forward for separate encoding, which is the argument from legibility. And several people have agreed that this argument is insufficient on its own, although I accept that it does have some weight. So I have an honest question. Can anyone, please, remind me of any technical arguments other than legibility for the separate encoding of Phoenician? It's my personal opinion that yes, UTC *should* encode Phoenician precisely because there is a group of scholars and others who have indicated they desire its encoding and would use it, and there *are* technical justifications which appeal to those Phoenician proponents, ... That is not an answer to my question. Let's rephrase it: If, for a hypothetical proposed script, there is no technical justification but only a user demand, should the UTC encode that script? ... even if you won't acknowledge them as such. It's apparent that one reason you won't acknowledge any technical issues is that you disagree on first principles and refuse to acknowledge any other needs or viewpoints than your own. Rick, I think you must be confusing me with someone else, perhaps on another list as no one on this list, at least on my side of the argument, has shown this attitude. Perhaps you just haven't read many of my postings. I have clearly set forth *both sides* of the argument several times, and have looked for mediating positions. See for example my response to Ken Whistler sent about 22 hours ago, from which I quote: Well, perhaps this is a way of finding an acceptable mediating position to put an end to the endless arguments in this thread. It may be a bit messy, like most compromises, but as it is feasible it is worthy of serious consideration. It should overcome the most serious objections of Semitic scholars etc to separate encoding of Phoenician... -- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
RE: Why Fraktur is irrelevant (was RE: Fraktur Legibility (was Re:Response to Everson Phoenician)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Peter Kirk > Of course I can easily use this example of the divine name in > Palaeo-Hebrew as an argument for unification of the scripts. Peter > Constable wrote a few hours ago: > > >If they were considered "font" variants, then you might > >expect to see different documents using one or the other, or see > >different elements within a single document using one or the other. > > > As I understand him, he would see use of Palaeo-Hebrew words in a square > Hebrew document as evidence that the two varieties of writing are "font" > variants and not distinct scripts. I was "greenlighting" and speaking in very general terms. The divine name is certainly a special case -- it's only this specific text element that uses PH, not e.g. any book title, or any scribal annotation -- and I'm not sure what the most likely analysis should be. PH may have been used with a perception that it was a more prestigious form of the same Hebrew characters. On the other hand, PH may have been used with the perception that, while changing the script from PH to sq Hebrew was tolerable for the bulk of the text, no change from the earliest-known textual representation of the divine name was acceptable. Or, the scribes may have had some other perception regarding this practice. I have no idea what was in the mind of the scribes. Peter Peter Constable Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Microsoft Windows Division
Re: Why Fraktur is irrelevant (was RE: Fraktur Legibility (was Re:Response to Everson Phoenician)
On 26/05/2004 14:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Kirk scripsit: So I have an honest question. Can anyone, please, remind me of any technical arguments other than legibility for the separate encoding of Phoenician? The same as the general argument for separating any two scripts: the desire to create plain-text documents which contain combinations of them. We do not identify Greek with Coptic any more because Michael was able to find mixed-script documents that the UTC agreed would deserve plain text representability. Thank you for reminding me of this technical argument, although I am not convinced that it was ever made clearly before during this debate. Well, where are the mixed-script documents in this case? The only such documents I have seen involve representations of the divine name in Palaeo-Hebrew characters in otherwise square Hebrew texts. Well, representation of the Hebrew divine name is a very interesting subject which Mark Shoulson has gone into in some detail. He made a proposal in 1998, http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1740/n1740.htm, and has recently been considering revising and resubmitting it, as discussed on the Unicode Hebrew list. Should the UTC accept the principle of encoding all of these variants as distinct plain text? I would be surprised if that idea is accepted (and it is not what Mark was proposing). The ancient practice of writing the divine name in Palaeo-Hebrew is simply an early example of this kind of special rendering of the divine name. As such it should be treated either as the regular letters yod-he-vav-he with special markup for a Palaeo-Hebrew font, or else as a glyph variant of the special divine name character which Mark was proposing. Of course I can easily use this example of the divine name in Palaeo-Hebrew as an argument for unification of the scripts. Peter Constable wrote a few hours ago: If they were considered "font" variants, then you might expect to see different documents using one or the other, or see different elements within a single document using one or the other. As I understand him, he would see use of Palaeo-Hebrew words in a square Hebrew document as evidence that the two varieties of writing are "font" variants and not distinct scripts. -- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
Re: Why Fraktur is irrelevant (was RE: Fraktur Legibility (was Re:Response to Everson Phoenician)
Peter Kirk scripsit: > So I have an honest question. Can anyone, please, remind me of any > technical arguments other than legibility for the separate encoding of > Phoenician? The same as the general argument for separating any two scripts: the desire to create plain-text documents which contain combinations of them. We do not identify Greek with Coptic any more because Michael was able to find mixed-script documents that the UTC agreed would deserve plain text representability. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan Heckler: "Go on, Al, tell 'em all you know. It won't take long." Al Smith: "I'll tell 'em all we *both* know. It won't take any longer."
Re: Why Fraktur is irrelevant (was RE: Fraktur Legibility (was Re:Response to Everson Phoenician)
Personally speaking, at this juncture, I usually yawn and hit the delete button when I see the word "Phoenician" on this list. The discussion has gone way past any sane argument. However, Peter Kirk asked a question to which I have a response. > ... we need to ask a more general question: should the > UTC encode scripts for which there is a (small, in this case) > demand but no technical justification? Do you even have to ask this question? If so, I have to think you haven't been listening at all. There are technical justifications for the encoding, but you are either failing to listen to them, or are refusing to believe that some of the justifications are technical. I will not repeat any arguments here, I've really had enough Phoenician. It's my personal opinion that yes, UTC *should* encode Phoenician precisely because there is a group of scholars and others who have indicated they desire its encoding and would use it, and there *are* technical justifications which appeal to those Phoenician proponents, even if you won't acknowledge them as such. It's apparent that one reason you won't acknowledge any technical issues is that you disagree on first principles and refuse to acknowledge any other needs or viewpoints than your own. As far as I'm concerned, that's about the end of the discussion. Personally speaking only, and not any official policy, and not speaking for any UTC member, etc, Rick
