Ken Whistler said, trenchantly, to John Cowan in a private message
which really bears repeating here:
If you *really* think that Sogdian and Punic are the same script and
we should just encode them all in Hebrew because we already got a
22-letter abjad, I gotta wonder what you've been smoking l
At 17:31 -0700 2004-04-30, Mark Davis wrote:
I find myself in agreement with Asmus on this. When reading
Michael's original proposal, it seemed fairly straightforward; but
it is now unclear to me why this necessarily needs to be encoded as
a different script than Hebrew.
Then you have not been r
From: "Ernest Cline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You've entirely missed the point I was trying to raise, Philippe.
>
> It was not the ability to do private normalization of private use
> characters that I was calling for, but making it easy to do.
> Private Variation Selectors and Private Combining Marks
> Providing
> private use characters with a default ccc other than 0 would
> open combining classes for private use in a manner that
> could be consistently normalized regardless of whether
> the implementation was a party to the private use or not.
Note that these could *not* be any existing PUA
Not like we haven't seen the same debate between Michael and
specialists before... From my own Unicode site's "Don't Proliferate,
Transliterate" mantra, it should be clear where my sympathies lie. But
as to Ken's dictum that
Semiticists could, if they so wish,
establish a de facto rule that t
You've entirely missed the point I was trying to raise, Philippe.
It was not the ability to do private normalization of private use
characters that I was calling for, but making it easy to do.
Private Variation Selectors and Private Combining Marks
with a non-zero combining class that have appropr
- Original Message -
From: "Ernest Cline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: An attempt to focus the PUA discussion [long]
>
> > [Original Mess
I find myself in agreement with Asmus on this. When reading Michael's original
proposal, it seemed fairly straightforward; but it is now unclear to me why this
necessarily needs to be encoded as a different script than Hebrew.
Michael wrote,
> Phoenician should be encoded because it has a demonstr
Dear Unicode List Subcribers --
Please read this carefully.
We will soon be moving the Unicode.ORG server to a new larger and faster
home. This move has been in preparation for a while, and we hope the
transision will be smooth. The move will cause some down-time for the
Unicode mail list.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Michael Everson
> Phoenician should be encoded because it has a demonstrable usage,
> even if it's slight and mostly paedagogical
Just to be clear, does that demonstrable usage pertain to users other
than the ancient Hebrew schol
> [Original Message]
> From: Kenneth Whistler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On the other hand, I could not expect any software doing
> Unicode normalization to pay any attention to *my* interpretation
> of those equivalences, and if I really wanted to process data
> using such equivalences, it would be
John Hudson said:
> but all I'm personally questioning is the one
> sentence in which he says the new Phoenician characters should be used used for
^^
> Palaeo-Hebrew.
Actually, as long as we are all pretending expertise in philolog
Phoenician should be encoded because it has a demonstrable usage,
even if it's slight and mostly paedagogical, and as one of the main
pre-cursors to a lot of other scripts.
That pre-cursor was not Hebrew, which developed later and did not
engender additional scripts.
--
Michael Everson * * Ever
Ernest Cline a écrit :
How about the following:
When deciding how to encode ancient scripts in Unicode, sometimes
arbitrary distinctions must be made between scripts that had a
continuous evolution from one form into another. Depending upon
the point of view of the author, a text written in a tran
> [Original Message]
> From: Patrick Andries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Ernest Cline a écrit :
>
> >No more so than Japanese becomes a different language when written
> >as romanji. Language and script are distinct and a given language is
> >often encoded using several different scripts. There may
At 15:57 -0400 2004-04-30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ego et Michael Everson inter se scripserunt:
>An alternate version of Michael could present a similarly
>technically impeccable proposal for Gaelic script, and then the
>question would be, is it the same as Latin, or is it a separate
>script r
Michael Everson wrote:
Scholars of writing systems have always recognized the distinction. No
one teaches that "The Greek script is derived from the Unified
Twenty-Two Character West Semitic Abjad." They teach that "The Greek
script is derived from the Phoenician script." They certainly do not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the one hand, the obvious recommendation would be to tell semiticists to
continue doing what they have been doing: encoding as Hebrew and displaying
with Phoenician-style glyph variants, as this enables textual analysis and
comparison with a larger body of Hebrew text
While I continue to be convinced that the 22 character repertoire of shapes
contained in the proposal is indeed well-known, as asserted by the
submitter, I am far less certain now that it would constitute progress to
encode these as characters.
I would want to see a lot more in terms of positiv
Ernest Cline a écrit :
[Original Message]
From: John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But your proposal specifically states that the 'Phoenician' characters
should
be used to encode Palaeo-Hebrew, as if somehow Hebrew and Hebrew are
different languages when they look different.
No more so th
At 12:40 -0700 2004-04-30, John Hudson wrote:
The people who have an issue with this do not recognise two distinct
scripts, and they are not going to recognise two distinct scripts
whether Unicode encodes them as such or not.
Scholars of writing systems have always recognized the distinction.
No
At 16:20 -0400 2004-04-30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is that, unlike Cyrillic and Latin, all these 22CWSAs are just
spatial and temporal variants of the same thing, at least according to me.
Michael says it ain't so, but he takes it as a personal attack when anyone
presses him for reasons.
Ernest Cline wrote:
Is this controversy over Paleo-Hebrew occurring in any context
other than the tetragrammaton?
Yes. Use of this style of lettering for the Tetragrammaton is a very late development and,
despite its importance in the argument that a plain text distinction needs to be made
betwee
> [Original Message]
> From: John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> But your proposal specifically states that the 'Phoenician' characters
should
> be used to encode Palaeo-Hebrew, as if somehow Hebrew and Hebrew are
> different languages when they look different.
No more so than Japanese becomes
John Hudson scripsit:
> On the one hand, the obvious recommendation would be to tell semiticists to
> continue doing what they have been doing: encoding as Hebrew and displaying
> with Phoenician-style glyph variants, as this enables textual analysis and
> comparison with a larger body of Hebre
From: John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Michael Everson wrote:
>
> > At 19:10 -0700 2004-04-29, John Hudson wrote:
> >
> >> Michael, Peter is not talking about the Phoenician language being
> >> represented in the Hebrew script, he is talking about the common
> >> practice of semiticists to
Ego et Michael Everson inter se scripserunt:
> >An alternate version of Michael could present a similarly
> >technically impeccable proposal for Gaelic script, and then the
> >question would be, is it the same as Latin, or is it a separate
> >script requiring a separate encoding?
>
> Except th
Michael Everson scripsit:
> >But the variation of some Latin and Cyrillic letters can be just as great.
>
> Unsupported assertion. You don't have anything like the difference
> between a single-stroke Hebrew YOD and a three-pronged Phoenician YOD
> between Cyrillic and Latin.
What about the pr
Michael Everson wrote:
You would encode the text in Phoenician script if you wanted to encode
it in the script in which it was originally written. You would encode
the text in Hebrew script if you wanted to encode it in the script in
which it was later written (after the Exile) and if you wanted
At 12:26 -0700 2004-04-30, John Hudson wrote:
This isn't a show-stopper, but I've asked several times now how you
and others think semiticists should encode such text: with Hebrew
characters corresponding to the language of the text, or with
'Phoenician' characters corresponding to the look of t
Michael Everson wrote:
At 19:10 -0700 2004-04-29, John Hudson wrote:
Michael, Peter is not talking about the Phoenician language being
represented in the Hebrew script, he is talking about the common
practice of semiticists to *encode* the Phoenician script using Hebrew
codepoints. The represent
It's been pointed out to me that I never explained the abbreviation
"22CWSA". Mea culpa. I got tired of typing "22-character West Semitic abjad".
--
Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is yourJohn Cowan
ear. However, I would suggest you wash your[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hands thoroughly befo
At 06:39 -0700 2004-04-30, Peter Constable wrote:
Has it struck anyone else that it might make best sense to consider
Fraser just an extension of Latin -- so we just need to encode the
turned capitals? Or is there more to it I'm not thinking about?
Evidence (or lack thereof) suggests that Fraser do
At 09:49 -0700 2004-04-30, John Hudson wrote:
Again, I am not opposing the encoding of 'Phoenician': I just want
to see the real issues resolved. To my mind, there is essentially
only one major issue in encoding the ancient North Semitic script
separately from Hebrew: how should users encode Pal
At 19:10 -0700 2004-04-29, John Hudson wrote:
Michael, Peter is not talking about the Phoenician language being
represented in the Hebrew script, he is talking about the common
practice of semiticists to *encode* the Phoenician script using
Hebrew codepoints. The representation of the text is in
At 20:45 -0400 2004-04-29, Dean Snyder wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "mother" and "daughter" here?
If you mean the chronologically prior and direct ancestor, then I would
be very interested in the evidence upon which you base such opinions.
What are you doing with Old Hebrew and Old Aramaic in
Michael Everson wrote:
Okay, perhaps we're getting somewhere and beginning to understand each
other. What you are saying, in effect, is that there is already a de
facto unification of Phoenician and Hebrew encoding, employed by a
significant user group.
But there is no de facto unification. Thi
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Michael Everson
> >Okay, perhaps we're getting somewhere and beginning to understand
> >each other. What you are saying, in effect, is that there is already
> >a de facto unification of Phoenician and Hebrew encoding, employed
> >b
At 09:33 -0400 2004-04-30, John Cowan wrote:
The Initial Teaching Alphabet, which also favors dead-simple glyphs,
may be relevant, perhaps even unifiable.
They are Latin extensions.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
At 06:47 -0400 2004-04-30, John Cowan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
Turned upper case "T" is also used in Fraser script. (Daniels & Bright,
page 582)
Ah, I see the next battle line forming: Is Fraser a separate script, or
just an oddball application of Latin caps for which we need a few ne
At 23:26 -0400 2004-04-29, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
I'd been making the same assumption all along as well. In the way
of corroboration, I have here Ze'ev Ben-?ayyim's book "A Grammar of
Samaritan Hebrew." Samaritans generally use their distinctive
scripts, especially in their religious books, b
John Hudson scripsit:
> [H]ow should users encode Palaeo-Hebrew texts? With the new codepoints, or
> with the Hebrew codepoints? The text is Hebrew, but the appropriate glyph
> forms are ancient North Semitic. I do think there is the possibility of
> significant confusion, which is not grounds
At 22:48 -0400 2004-04-28, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
The script spectrum is inarguably a continuum, and it's a matter of
how many snapshots or branches to encode, and which ones. And of
course, *who* gets to make that decision. It's something to be
approached with some care, but perhaps it's sma
At 13:45 -0700 2004-04-28, Peter Kirk wrote:
The best argument that Michael has is that Phoenician glyphs look
very different from Hebrew glyphs.
And the etymology. We have taken the historical origin of letters and
scripts to be a criterion for disunification. YOGH and EZH is one
example.
But
At 15:15 -0700 2004-04-29, John Hudson wrote:
Okay, perhaps we're getting somewhere and beginning to understand
each other. What you are saying, in effect, is that there is already
a de facto unification of Phoenician and Hebrew encoding, employed
by a significant user group.
But there is no de
At 18:30 -0400 2004-04-29, Patrick Andries wrote:
[PA] Given the negative aspects (a and c), if indeed there is a de
facto unification of Phoenician, Punic, Neopunic(*), Paleo-Hebrew
with Hebrew, what would be gained from the proposed disunification
away from Hebrew ?
THere isn't such a de facto
At 12:40 -0700 2004-04-29, Peter Constable wrote:
> > > >That expectation is of course not acceptable to scholars.
>>
>> Scholars do what they want.
>
>And who, exactly, would use the new characters besides scholars?
Students of various alphabet and writing systems, and authors of
educatio
At 11:11 -0700 2004-04-29, John Hudson wrote:
Peter, using a systematic transliteration
between two structurally identical scripts is
not comparable to hack encodings.
Vide Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli. Come on, gents.
Don't try to tell me that I don't know the
difference between a unifiable and a
n
If I had to take a position right now, I would think that encoding Old
Canaanite (not Phoenician) and Samaritan is useful, but I would leave
Aramaic, et al. for more expert, soul-searching discussion.
This sounds a lot like what is being proposed, modulo a name-change:
we're working on a Samarita
Dean Snyder wrote,
> >In the case of ideographic
> >unification, one can look at the glyphs involved and clearly observe
> >the similarity. This is not so with Phoenician and Hebrew, clearly.
>
> Yes it is, for the ancient periods.
Because the ancient Hebrews used the Phoenician script.
> "H
At 19:28 -0700 2004-04-29, John Hudson wrote:
With what characters -- Hebrew or Phoenician -- would you expect
Birnbaum's Palaeo-Hebrew to be encoded?
Phoenician, **just as it says in the proposal**.
It seems to me that on visual grounds one would use Phoenician, but
on textual grounds one would
At 23:01 -0400 2004-04-28, Dean Snyder wrote:
Michael Everson is one of the authors of the proposal to encode 2400
years of cuneiform in one unified encoding. There is far greater
disparity between URIII Sumerian and Neo-Babylonian embodied in that
proposed single encoding than there is between
At 00:24 -0400 2004-04-30, John Cowan wrote:
An alternate version of Michael could present a similarly
technically impeccable proposal for Gaelic script, and then the
question would be, is it the same as Latin, or is it a separate
script requiring a separate encoding?
Except that he wouldn't do
On Apr 30, 2004, at 1:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like UNIHAN.TXT, brevity is not a feature of the following...
Tabs... In addition to the points Mike made about the tab character
having
different semantics depending on the application/platform, I just don't
think a control character like tab
At 15:46 -0700 2004-04-29, Peter Kirk wrote:
Such problems were found with biblical Hebrew because (I am told)
accents were encoded on the basis of data from a reference book
rather than from contact with users. Unicode needs to make sure that
such mistakes are not repeated.
Hebrew is not the mo
At 20:02 -0400 2004-04-28, Dean Snyder wrote:
Michael Everson wrote at 12:15 PM on Wednesday, April 28, 2004:
Because Hebrew is only *one* of Phoenician's descendants and because
there is a requirement to distinguish the two in plain text. There
exist Hebrew texts and Greek texts which use this scr
John Hudson a écrit :
Again, I am not opposing the encoding of 'Phoenician': I just want to
see the real issues resolved. To my mind, there is essentially only
one major issue in encoding the ancient North Semitic script
separately from Hebrew: how should users encode Palaeo-Hebrew texts?
With
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Let's keep Hebrew clean with only modern Hebrew and traditional pointed
Hebrew... The religious traditions in Hebrew are too strong to allow importing
into it some variants and marks coming from separate Phoenitic branches used by
non-Hebrew languages.
The 'religious tradition
Philippe Verdy wrote at 3:45 PM on Friday, April 30, 2004:
>Suppose that a modern Hebrew text is speaking about Phoenician words, the
>script
>distinction is not only a matter of style but carries semantic
distinctions as
>well, as they are distinct languages. It's obvious that a modern Hebrew
rea
Peter Constable replied to John Cowan,
> > Here's what I find: Fraser needs turned A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, L, P,
> > R, T, U, V, and W; also reversed K (but I wonder if turned K is
> equally
> > recognizable).
>
> I've always assumed that they just took Latin type, ignored the
> lowercase, and
wrote:
> But, I'd go with Fraser being just an oddball application of Latin
> caps for which we need a few new ones. Like the turned T and reversed
> K, which seem to have other uses, too.
Hey, don't forget that all-important reversed-K symbol for "called
strike three!"
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton,
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> Suppose that a modern Hebrew text is speaking about Phoenician words, the script
> distinction is not only a matter of style but carries semantic distinctions as
> well, as they are distinct languages. It's obvious that a modern Hebrew reader
> will not be able to deciph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 7:07 AM on Friday, April 30, 2004:
>Dean Snyder wrote,
>In the case of ideographic
>unification, one can look at the glyphs involved and clearly observe
>the similarity. This is not so with Phoenician and Hebrew, clearly.
Yes it is, for the ancient periods.
"Hebrew"
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Here's what I find: Fraser needs turned A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, L, P,
> R, T, U, V, and W; also reversed K (but I wonder if turned K is
equally
> recognizable).
I've always assumed that they just took Latin type, ig
Andrew C. West wrote,
> No, not at all. The charts may show consonant-vowel syllables, but that does not
> mean that I believe that they should be proposed to be encoded as syllables.
>
> What I was saying was that all the glyphs needed for a proposal are nicely laid
> out here, not that there i
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Unifying Phoenician and Hebrew would be akin to unifying
> Katakana and Hiragana. *That* would be silly.
One good argument in favor of not unifying Phoenician and Hebrew, which are in a
situation comparable to Hiragana and Katakana, with one set having a onen-to-one
ma
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Turned upper case "T" is also used in Fraser script. (Daniels &
Bright,
> page 582)
Has it struck anyone else that it might make best sense to consider
Fraser just an extension of Latin -- so we just need to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> Thank goodness for Omniglot!
Indeed. Thanks for the Proel pointer, though.
Here's what I find: Fraser needs turned A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, L, P,
R, T, U, V, and W; also reversed K (but I wonder if turned K is equally
recognizable). Unicode 4.0 already has reverse
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:29:58PM -0700, Peter Constable wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
>
> > Would you need to have the same web-text [in HTML] displayed
> > in Romanian as well as in Cyrillic script according to
> > the reader's wishes?
>
> It could perhaps b
> (I just used existing ASCII punctuation in this example.)
Actually, I used PUA for these tonal marks, too, it appears.
Best regards,
James Kass
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:46:30AM -0700, Peter Constable wrote:
> Is anyone aware of Croatian being written in anything besides Latin script? Is
> Cyrillic also used? (Since Bosnians and Serbs apparently use both scripts, it
> wouldn't be surprising if Croats do as well.)
see http://www.hr/dark
John Cowan wrote,
> Is there an explanation anywhere on the Net? I don't have D & B.
The Proel page on Miao has a good scan of Fraser script interspersed
with several examples of Pollard script. Note that Proel fails to make
the distinction between Fraser and Pollard. The Fraser example
foll
On Fri,
>
> Andrew C. West scripsit:
>
> > For example, the excellent description of the Tocharian script
> > (surely the worst made-up name for a dead script ever) at
> > http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/toch/tochbr.htm could
> > be the basis of a proposal for this important Brah
Andrew C. West scripsit:
> For example, the excellent description of the Tocharian script
> (surely the worst made-up name for a dead script ever) at
> http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/toch/tochbr.htm could
> be the basis of a proposal for this important Brahmic script. There is
> a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> But, I'd go with Fraser being just an oddball application of Latin caps for
> which we need a few new ones.
Do the typographical forms used in Fraser fit squarely into the Latin
caps tradition, or are there variants that are outside that tradition
(other than the s
John Cowan wrote,
> Ah, I see the next battle line forming: Is Fraser a separate script, or
> just an oddball application of Latin caps for which we need a few new ones?
Well, the Punic wars may not be over yet.
But, I'd go with Fraser being just an oddball application of Latin caps for
which
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:35:55 -0700, Rick McGowan wrote:
>
> The unified Brahmis proposal exactly proposes unification of systems with
> vastly different rendering behavior. That's part of the controversy with it.
> But that proposal is currently sitting on a siding waiting to be taken up
> by the
> Hobbyists and lay people. Encyclopedia writers? Overall, much of the same
> crowd who would be immediately well-served by encoding the "Gardiner" set
> of Egyptian hieroglyphics.
I consider myself as one of the people who would be well-served by the
encoding of Egyptian hieroglyphics. But Do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> Turned upper case "T" is also used in Fraser script. (Daniels & Bright,
> page 582)
Ah, I see the next battle line forming: Is Fraser a separate script, or
just an oddball application of Latin caps for which we need a few new ones?
--
"And it was said that ever a
On Thursday, April 29, 2004 2:17 PM, C J Fynn va escriure:
> In font lookups, where a variant glyph form of a base character is
> displayed due to the presence of a VS character, the lookups for
> glyph forms of subsequent dependant vowel marks will be dependant
> on the variant base glyph (as l
Like UNIHAN.TXT, brevity is not a feature of the following...
Tabs... In addition to the points Mike made about the tab character having
different semantics depending on the application/platform, I just don't
think a control character like tab belongs in a *.TXT file period. Although
UNIHAN.TXT
Dean Snyder wrote,
> 1) The script is wrongly called "Phoenician" - the same script was used
> for Old Phoenician, Old Aramaic, Old Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and
> Edomite. That is why I propose it be named "[Old] Canaanite".
The Latin script is used for English, German, Tahitian, Apache, etc..
Kenneth Whistler wrote,
> What nobody seems to have noticed yet is that in that same document,
> Rev. J. Owen Dorsey also used an uppercase turned T (the capital
> letter form of U+0287 LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED T, which also appears
> in this text). Those turned t's were used in Dorsey's orthogr
Kenneth Whistler writes:
> At any rate, since *neither* the capital C-stroke nor the capital turned-T
> are in Unicode currently, anyone who is thinking about putting together
> a proposal for the first one based on this Dorsey material might
> as well include the other character as well, so we
Question for discussion:
What would be the potential costs -- in terms of stability, existing
data, principles and policy, saving face, etc. -- of redefining the
default directionality of Private Use Plane 16 (U+10 through
U+10FFFD) to strong RTL? What would be the potential benefits?
-Doug
Ernest Cline wrote:
>> 3) Define ad-hoc standards that are based on Unicode but make
>> character assignments in the PUA and lobby application vendors
>> to support these encodings in addition to regular Unicode.
>
> I just can't see application or OS vendors choosing to pick a
> single PUA stand
86 matches
Mail list logo
