Kenneth Whistler wrote at 4:32 PM on Friday, April 30, 2004:
>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-Hebre
Rick McGowan wrote at 11:21 AM on Saturday, May 1, 2004:
>Peter Kirk wrote...
>> I have yet to see ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL
>> that ANYONE AT ALL has a need for this encoding.
>
>Ahem. Define "need". On this list we don't have the right set of people to
>ask, actually. That is why the proposal has al
Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 11:04 PM on Saturday, May 1, 2004:
>Dean Snyder wrote:
>
>>PhoenicianHebrew
>>1st Millenium BC 2nd Millenium AD
>>
>>ykbd ykbd both = "he will honor"
>>tbrk tbrk both = "she will bless"
>>bqsh
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
> So the "transitional" forms are more to be found in Aramaic texts: if
> you're distinguishing by shape, Paleo-Hebrew is definitely not
> transitional.
I don't think this means temporally transitional, but functionally so.
Phoenician writing, Hebrew language: a borde
Michael Everson wrote at 4:37 PM on Friday, April 30, 2004:
>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
>teach that "The Greek scrip
Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 30/04/2004 11:21, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 06:47 -0400 2004-04-30, 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?
>
>
> It
Ernest Cline wrote:
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 transit
Dean Snyder wrote:
PhoenicianHebrew
1st Millenium BC 2nd Millenium AD
ykbd ykbd both = "he will honor"
tbrk tbrk both = "she will bless"
bqsh bqsh both = "he searched for"
btm
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.
Well, there are other
The lack of support for supplementary characters expressed in UTF-8
in the Internet Explorer is a bug. As Philippe Verdy mentions, the
Mozilla browser does not have this same bug. Also it should be
noted that the Opera browser handles non-BMP UTF-8 just fine.
While working with NCRs may be an
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Someone mentioned "Turkish script". This would be rather like trying to
> define a Turkish script which is similar to Arabic until the 1920's and
> then suddenly became similar to Latin script!
Is uppose that this was a confusion of terms. In Turkey or for
Simon Montagu wrote,
> This misses the point. The question is whether the oldest surviving texts
> in the "Phoenician" script were written by Phoenicians. The fact that it's
> called Phoenician script doesn't prove anything about its origin: it may
> be analogous to the term "Arabic numbers", whi
Note that I can successfully display extended Chinese with the registry settings
applied to support surrogates, whever the page is coded with GB18030 or with
Unicode. My question was about the native support of GB18030 in Windows 2000/XP,
China Editions: does Windows comes preset with this registry
James Kass wrote,
>
> Peter Kirk wrote,
>
>> This is based on a historically unproven assumption that this script
>> originated with the Phoenicians. I don't think it's even true that the
>> oldest surviving texts in this script are Phoenician.
>
> Would the oldest surviving texts in the Phoenicia
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Welcome, Malta, to the European Community.
Correction: Welcome, Malta, to the "European Union".
Malta was already part of _a_ European Community; if you know the history of the
European Union, you'll have seen many references to the European Communities
(
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Arid Canaanite Wasteland (was: Re: New contribution)
Peter Kirk wrote,
> Understood. But
> the Phoenician block for Phoenician script. If the Hebrew block is use
> for Phoenician script (not for transliteration but with masquerading
> fonts), that is just as much a failure to do what Unicode requires as to
> use the Latin block for Hebrew script with a legacy encoding.
Unicode does no
From: "Francois Yergeau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Raymond Mercier a écrit :
> > However, I am disappointed to find that IE6 will not display
> > U+2, etc.
>
> See http://www.i18nguy.com/surrogates.html, may help.
I kew about this page and the related settings. But as a subsidiary question, is
thi
Peter Kirk wrote,
> This is based on a historically unproven assumption that this script
> originated with the Phoenicians. I don't think it's even true that the
> oldest surviving texts in this script are Phoenician.
Would the oldest surviving texts in the Phoenician script be
in a script oth
Peter Kirk wrote,
>
> This pedagogical usage is not in plain text, or at least plain text
> usage has not been demonstrated. I think I asked before and didn't
> receive an answer: should Unicode encode a script whose ONLY
> demonstrated usage is in alphabet charts? I think the answer is not,
Raymond Mercier a écrit :
> However, I am disappointed to find that IE6 will not display
> U+2, etc.
See http://www.i18nguy.com/surrogates.html, may help.
--
François
Thanks very much. With these changes in the Registry the font Simsun
(Founder extended) displays in IE, and in my Hanfind to
At 10:36 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
This pedagogical usage is not in plain text, or at least plain text
usage has not been demonstrated. I think I asked before and didn't
receive an answer: should Unicode encode a script whose ONLY
demonstrated usage is in alphabet charts? I think the a
From: C J Fynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Compare for instance Kannada and Telugu which share a common
> > > origin in the not so distant past - and are still very near
identical -
> > > yet are encoded in their own ranges.
> >
> > They do have distinct b
Peter Kirk wrote...
> But on the other hand, the lack of a consensus among *any*
> people that they have a need for an encoding does seem to imply that
> there is no need for an encoding.
In this, you are utterly wrong, I'm afraid. We (in UTC) have seen
situations before where one group desires
"John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rick McGowan wrote:
>
> > And... There *is* a proposal for a unified ancient Brahmi that encompasses
> > several things (non-modern) that also could be encoded on their own. This
> > isn't mature yet.
>
> More than once during this discussion, I've though
On 30/04/2004 15:57, Michael Everson wrote:
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 add
On 29/04/2004 19:04, John Hudson wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
This sounds a lot like what is being proposed, modulo a name-change:
we're working on a Samaritan proposal, Hebrew's already there, and
Michael has proposed Old Canaanite, which for some reason he has
chosen to call Phoenician. The
On 29/04/2004 18:07, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
...
Of course it would be. And Arabic written in Latin letters has to be
analyzed differently too (yes, the situations aren't really symmetric,
since Latin isn't a native script for Arabic. ...
It is in Malta. Maltese is, I understand, no different f
On 30/04/2004 16:32, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
...
Michael keeps pointing out (and others, including the Johns, have
recognized) that encoding a set of Phoenician letters does not
*require* any Semitic scholar to represent Palaeo-Hebrew text
using those letters.
It does *permit* them (or anyone else)
On 29/04/2004 20:03, Dean Snyder wrote:
...
Just a few pertinent quotes from one respected West Semitic scholar will
illustrate the point:
"Three alphabetic scripts which evolved from a common ancestor [Proto-
Canaanite] were used in Syria-Palestine in the first millenium B.C.:
Phoenician, Hebrew a
On 29/04/2004 16:56, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote, in response to Ernest Cline:
... It simply is impossible
to simulate non-zero canonical combining class characters in Unicode
with anything other than a character with the appropriate canonical
combining class. ...
True. But
On 30/04/2004 00:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On 30/04/2004 14:52, Ernest Cline wrote:
...
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 transit
On 29/04/2004 17:36, Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:34 -0700 2004-04-29, Peter Kirk wrote:
But what answer do you have to my point, made in more detail
elsewhere, that it will cause total confusion, and defeat the
purposes of Unicode, if some people use the new characters and others
don't?
Frankl
On 30/04/2004 06:45, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
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 a
On 29/04/2004 21:04, John Cowan wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
Besides, you have a better idea? :)
Double-encode the vowel marks. As things stand, two Unicode principles
are in conflict: combining characters come after their bases, and
natural-language text is encoded in phonetic order
On 30/04/2004 11:21, Michael Everson wrote:
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 applic
On 29/04/2004 20:26, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
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
On 29/04/2004 19:15, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Having duly read through this entire discussion about
Michael Everson's Phoenician encoding proposal and having
tried to understand all the points made in the arguments here,
I was particularly struck by one point that Michael made:
This Phoenician pr
On 30/04/2004 13:30, John Hudson wrote:
... 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. I'm not sure that this is the best recommendation to
make to the people who actually work with Palaeo-Hebrew.
Raymond Mercier a écrit :
> However, I am disappointed to find that IE6 will not display
> U+2, etc.
See http://www.i18nguy.com/surrogates.html, may help.
--
François
Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Compare for instance Kannada and Telugu which share a common origin in
> the
> > not
> > so distant past - and are still very near identical - yet are
> encoded in
> > their own ranges.
>
> They do have distinct behaviours and rendering requirements.
>
I
> > "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Certainly, but what is the distinction between downloading/distributing a
font
> or downloading/ditributing a XML file containing the PUA conventions?
One file not two - and some assurance that the custom properties haven't been
altered since th
Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but two wrongs don't make a right. One past mistake of Unicode, or
> decision it had to take for compatibility reasons, does not create a
> precedent.
Your assuming that not unifying some Indic scripts was a mistake or done for
compatibility reasons.
Having installed the large font Simsun (Founder Extended), which covers much
of CJK(Ext B)(U+2, etc), I find that these characters appear in MS
Word, Wordpad and Notepad.
However, I am disappointed to find that IE6 will not display U+2, etc.
Of course in Tools/Internet Options, I have set
From: "Ernest Cline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, this does point out the desirability of having codepoints that
> while their semantics are defined privately, their property values are defined
> by Unicode. This is because while an implementation conforming to a
particular
> Private Use should
At 13:30 -0700 2004-04-30, John Hudson wrote:
What I'm referring to is the body of inscriptional and numismatic
text from a period of c. 700-800 years in which the Hebrew language
is written in the common North Semitic script that is covered in
Michael's proposal. The point is that this is all H
> [Original Message]
> From: Philippe Verdy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > > Providing
> > > private use characters with a default ccc other than 0 would
> > > open combining classes for private use in a manner that
- Original Message -
From: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: An attempt to focus the PUA discussion [long]
> > Providing
> > private use characters with a default
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
> But we are talking edge case here, because through all the double-talk
> going on, there still seems an obvious consensus that there *is*
> a Phoenician script (well illustrated in the examples in the
> proposal), used for an extensive period, adapted for various
> lan
Michael Everson scripsit:
> Well, when I talk about the historical relationships between the
> scripts and their glyphs and the family tree and encoding nodes of it
> with relation to other encoded and not-yet-encoded scripts, those
> *whys* have been ignored, which is why I said to you, privat
51 matches
Mail list logo
