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
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
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 already
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-Hebrew.
Michael Everson wrote at 10:09 AM on Wednesday, April 28, 2004:
A new contribution
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2746
N2746 Final proposal for encoding the Phoenician script in the UCS
Here follow some remarks of mine on this proposal:
C2a. Has contact been made to members of the user
(Note that this site considers Palaeo a separate script, this is quite
clear in the paragraph quoted above.)
And there are sites that consider Gaelic and Fraktur seperate scripts,
including one by Michael Everson. Even if we assume knowledge and competence,
we still can't assume they're using
At 00:36 -0800 2004-05-02, D. Starner wrote:
And there are sites that consider Gaelic and Fraktur seperate scripts,
including one by Michael Everson.
My site certainly does not consider Gaelic to be a separate script from Latin.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *
My site certainly does not consider Gaelic to be a separate script from Latin.
Did you remove Latg and Latf from the scripts standard? Which is exactly on-point
to my message--it is useful to distinguish scripts in many cases that Unicode
may not.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold a écrit :
At 9:43 AM -0700 5/1/04, Peter Kirk wrote:
For the record, I agree that Old Canaanite would be a better name.
The reason for this is not primarily to be more Semito-centric, but
rather to represent better the range of languages covered. For the
same reason, Latin
D. Starner wrote,
And there are sites that consider Gaelic and Fraktur seperate scripts,
including one by Michael Everson. Even if we assume knowledge and competence,
we still can't assume they're using the same definition for a seperate script
as Unicode does.
I agree with the second
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:
But is there some
reason we call this the Latin script instead of the Roman script? Not
that I'm suggesting we change it now, of course. I'm just curious.
Primarily because roman is used in opposition to italic as the name
of a font face, so Cyrillic roman
At 08:53 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
Is Fraser a separate script, or just an oddball application of
Latin caps for which we need a few new ones?
It is a separate script.
In your opinion. Or have you consulted with experts on this one, as
you failed to do on Phoenician?
Mr Kirk, while you
At 08:58 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
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 Unicode Consortium has been designated as Registration Authority
for ISO 15924; I have been engaged by the Consortium to act as
Registrar.
The ISO 15924 web site is now online at http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/
The Registrar requests that the e-mail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] be
discontinued,
At 10:45 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
Ken, in one sense the Unicode standard does not REQUIRE anyone to do
anything but only PERMITS them to do so. But in another sense, if it
fails to REQUIRE anything it becomes a waste of time.
An unsubstantiated supposition.
And if it requires anything
At 17:09 +0100 2004-05-01, C J Fynn wrote:
While it is essential to get input from experts in the script(s)
concerned, input from experts in script character encoding is just
as important. It is members of the latter group that end up making
the final decision.
You know, Chris, when I was
At 03:28 -0800 2004-05-02, D. Starner wrote:
My site certainly does not consider Gaelic to be a separate
script from Latin.
Did you remove Latg and Latf from the scripts standard? Which is
exactly on-point to my message--it is useful to distinguish scripts
in many cases that Unicode may not.
[Original Message]
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I remain grateful to Ernest Cline for his useful technical
contribution to what will be the -R version of N2746. And I remain
confident that Phoenician will be encoded as a unique script,
separate from Hebrew.
Blush.
As long
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 6:25 PM
Subject: ISO 15924
The Unicode Consortium has been designated as Registration Authority
for ISO 15924; I have been engaged by the Consortium to act as
At 13:08 -0400 2004-05-02, Ernest Cline wrote:
As long as you are doing a revision. One thing that would make
someone like me who knows very little about the glyphs themselves
happier with the proposal would be if there would be some
explanation with examples of why the proposed pruning of the
[Original Message]
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 13:08 -0400 2004-05-02, Ernest Cline wrote:
As long as you are doing a revision. One thing that would make
someone like me who knows very little about the glyphs themselves
happier with the proposal would be if there would
C J Fynn cfynn at gmx dot net wrote:
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
At 10:25 AM 5/2/2004, Michael Everson wrote:
Do you really think it necessary that the proposal be a thesis reprising a
hundred years of script analysis?
I think what's desirable is something of a summary that applies this
analysis in a way that it can be related to the research. A thesis would
On 02/05/2004 06:33, Michael Everson wrote:
...
If so, you might be able to cite a body of opinion that it is a
separate script.
I have already done so. In the whole history of the study of writing,
no scholar has ever suggested that Phoenician is a variant of the
Hebrew script.
No, but they
On 01/05/2004 11:42, Michael Everson wrote:
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
On 02/05/2004 06:46, Michael Everson wrote:
...
And if it requires anything at all beyond the very basic conformance
requirements, it can be presumed to require that the Latin blocks are
used for Latin script, the Hebrew block for Hebrew script, and so (if
and when one is defined) the
On 02/05/2004 05:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Web Hebrew AD and Web Hebrew Monospace are the names
of TrueType fonts. Other fonts use the same masquerade, thus
it was an ad-hoc standard.
There are actually a large number of alternate and mutually incompatible
masquerades for Hebrew
As one coming from the world of ancient Indo-European (IE) and as editor of a journal
on IE out of UCLA, I am in support of the Phoenician proposal.
In Indo-European, the origins of the Greek alphabet are of interest, and hence the
materials that discuss Phoenician as the possible source for
On 01/05/2004 14:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Viva Punicode!
James Kass
Cartago delenda est! Destroy the Phoenicians and long live Latin script
eveywhere! :-)
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
Rick McGowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We (in UTC) have seen situations before where one group desires an
encoding for a script that is strongly opposed by another group --
even for the *same* language in the *same* historical period.
Ol Chiki, for example.
There is a { large, vocal } group
On 01/05/2004 14:21, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Welcome, Malta, to the European Community.
Correction: Welcome, Malta, to the European Union.
Thank you for the correction.
...
The Council of Europe, which includes 15 countries in Europe (including
At 09:20 AM 5/2/2004, Michael Everson wrote:
At 03:28 -0800 2004-05-02, D. Starner wrote:
My site certainly does not consider Gaelic to be a separate script
from Latin.
Did you remove Latg and Latf from the scripts standard? Which is exactly
on-point to my message--it is useful to distinguish
jameskass at att dot net wrote:
The BabelPad editor can easily convert between UTF-8 and NCRs...
As can SC UniPad.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
C J Fynn wrote:
More than once during this discussion, I've thought that something
approaching a general
principle might be stated as 'related dead scripts should be unified; their
living
descendants may be separately encoded'.
Where two 'related dead scripts' have substantial differences in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Mesha Stele (otherwise known as the Moabite Stone) is already
available in Hebrew script. What is the need for a separate encoding of
the same text?
There are probably other transliterations of the text already available,
too, such as Latin. Wouldn't it be nice to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While the fact that it's called Phoenician script doesn't prove anything
about its origin, it might be considered indicative of the path through
which the script was borrowed.
Indeed. This is the point I made earlier: Greco-centric European scholarship of writing
John Hudson wrote,
This is a silly question, because the whole debate is about that constitutes
'properly
encoded'. The Mesha Stele can be perfectly easily encoded using existing Hebrew
codepoints
and displayed in the Phoenician style with appropriate glyphs.
I'm not saying that this
Michael Everson wrote:
The Unicode Consortium has been designated as Registration Authority for
ISO 15924; I have been engaged by the Consortium to act as Registrar.
The ISO 15924 web site is now online at http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/
In the code lists at
Asmus Freytag wrote:
At 10:25 AM 5/2/2004, Michael Everson wrote:
Do you really think it necessary that the proposal be a thesis
reprising a hundred years of script analysis?
I think what's desirable is something of a summary that applies this
analysis in a way that it can be related to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a silly question, because the whole debate is about that constitutes
'properly
encoded'. The Mesha Stele can be perfectly easily encoded using existing Hebrew
codepoints
and displayed in the Phoenician style with appropriate glyphs.
I'm not saying that this is
From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not all font formats, not even all smart font formats, can contain all
of the property information for every character the font supports.
OpenType/Uniscribe was mentioned as an example where the rendering
engine does work that would be done by the font in
John Hudson tiro at tiro dot com wrote:
In the code lists at
http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html the 4-letter
script codes are shown capitalised, e.g. Arab not arab, Armn not armn,
etc.. Is this
intentional? Should the codes always be capitalised? Does it matter if
they are
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 02/05/2004 05:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting from the jewfaq page,
The example of pointed text above uses Snuit's Web Hebrew AD font.
These Hebrew fonts map to ASCII 224-250, high ASCII characters which
are not normally available on the keyboard, but this is the
John Hudson wrote,
Again, you are missing the point because you are *assuming* that encoding the
Mesha Stele
with Unicode Hebrew characters = transliteration, i.e. that there is some other
encoding
that is more proper or even 'true'. The contra-argument is that the 'Phoenician'
script
From: John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Everson wrote:
In the code lists at http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html the
4-letter
script codes are shown capitalised, e.g. Arab not arab, Armn not armn, etc..
Is this
intentional? Should the codes always be capitalised? Does it
John Hudson tiro at tiro dot com wrote:
Some acknowledgement that there is disagreement in this field would
also be welcome. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying
'this encoding unified the following writing systems based on this
analysis', while also acknowledging that this is
Patrick Andries wrote:
Is there a lot of Paleo-Hebrew texts out there ? Encoded with the
Hebrew block ? If not this maybe a red herring
As far as I know, there are very few surviving Paleo-Hebrew texts in any
form, but googling for the first words of those I know of produces at
least one hit in
From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ISO 15924 alpha-4 codes are already distinguishable from ISO 639 and ISO
3166 codes, simply by virtue of being four letters long.
Not really: Many ISO 3166-3 codes (for former countries or territories or those
that
have changed their code) are also 4 letters.
From: Asmus Freytag [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The classification of written materials for bibliographical use is
different from the classification of writing systems for encoding. For a
reader faced with the choice of locating a Fraktur or Roman edition of a
German classic, having that information is
At 13:57 -0700 2004-05-02, John Hudson wrote:
In the code lists at
http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html the 4-letter
script codes are shown capitalised, e.g. Arab not arab, Armn not
armn, etc.. Is this intentional? Should the codes always be
capitalised? Does it matter if they
At 14:03 -0700 2004-05-02, Paul Nelson \(TYPOGRAPHY\) wrote:
It seems funny that a two or three character script, like Yi, must have
a weird name just so it has four alpha characters (Yiii).
Yes, it does.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
At 11:10 -0700 2004-05-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 01/05/2004 11:42, Michael Everson wrote:
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
At 11:06 -0700 2004-05-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
Michael Everson, who knows so little Phoenician that he doesn't know
how similar it is to Hebrew?
You are confusing language and script. I am not encoding the
Phoenician language. I am encoding a set of genetically related
scripts with similar
At 14:31 -0400 2004-05-02, Ernest Cline wrote:
Samaritan would be the most direct continuation of the original Phoenician.
Well then, why doesn't the proposal for Phoenician reflect that?
Because it's not a proposal for Samaritan?
The only problem with common sense is that it isn't very common,
At 11:43 -0700 2004-05-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
And if you want to write Phoenician text in Phoenician script, you
can use Phoenician script for it. And if you want to write
Phoenician text in Hebrew transliteration, you can use Hebrew
script for it. And if you want to write Phoenician text in
At 14:17 -0700 2004-05-02, John Hudson wrote:
Again, you are missing the point because you are *assuming* that
encoding the Mesha Stele with Unicode Hebrew characters =
transliteration, i.e. that there is some other encoding that is more
proper or even 'true'. The contra-argument is that the
At 01:20 +0200 2004-05-04, Simon Montagu wrote:
As far as I know, there are very few surviving Paleo-Hebrew texts in
any form, but googling for the first words of those I know of
produces at least one hit in each case:
I am sure that the Dhammapada can be found written (transliterated)
in many
I wrote:
The FDIS from February 2003 states that The four-letter codes SHALL
be written with an initial capital Latin letter and final small Latin
letters (emphasis mine).
Never mind that; the *actual approved standard* says the same:
http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/standard/index.html
I
I posted this message to the message boards of Distributed Proofreaders-Europe
dp.rastko.net
(a joint effort of Project Rastko www.rastko.net and Project Gutenberg
www.gutenberg.net),
and got this response from one of the site admins.
nikola wrote:
Haha Romanian use Cyrillic up to 19th
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:10 -0700 2004-05-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
Stop poking fun at me and treating me as an imbecile. Of course you
know that I know that this script was actually used.
You are the one who said that its *only* demonstrated usage is in
alphabet charts.
So now if you think that two scripts that are isomorphic and closely related
should be unified, then you're exerting political pressure?
Since no rational basis for the heated objections to the proposal
seems apparent, political pressure appears to be a likely choice.
Excuse me? This is a
Michael Everson scripsit:
I don't believe that it is possible to claim that the Phoenician
script is identical to the Hebrew script. When scripts have identity,
it is possible to change fonts and still have people be able to
recognize them. We did this when we unified the three Syriac
Still it seems legitimate to mark the font explicitly with the private
convention it is supposed to support. For example a font containing glyphs
mapped to PUAs assigned in the 2003 version of the ConScript PUA registry
could
be marked as such by including a trace of this private usage
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
If Phoenician is considered a glyphic variation of modern Hebrew, then
it can also be considered a glyphic variation of modern Greek.
Greek is descended from the 22CWSA, but its alphabet is *not* the 22CWSA
structurally.
it then follow that modern Greek should
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
Not really: Many ISO 3166-3 codes (for former countries or territories
or those that have changed their code) are also 4 letters.
For example ZRCD designates the former Zaïre (now Dem. Rep. of Congo),
DDDE the former Dem. Rep. of Germany (now unified with Germany),
Michael Everson wrote...
The historical cut that has been made here considers the line from
Phoenician to Punic to represent a single continuous branch of
script evolution.
I think Rick McGowan wrote that sentence in UTR#3.
Indeed, I did. And I based my take on this history on the secondary
Michael Everson scripsit:
You can say this over and over and over again, John, and it doesn't
make a unification of Phoenician with its daughter-via-Aramaic Square
Hebrew a reasonable unification. Greek does not derive from glyph
variants of Hebrew script. The Greek script derives from
Philippe Verdy verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
ISO 15924 alpha-4 codes are already distinguishable from ISO 639 and
ISO 3166 codes, simply by virtue of being four letters long.
Not really: Many ISO 3166-3 codes (for former countries or territories
or those that have changed their
At 22:54 -0400 2004-05-02, John Cowan wrote:
Greek doesn't derive from Square Hebrew, and I never claimed it did.
Greek does derive from some variant of the 22CWSA, posssibly (but not
provably) the ones used to write the Phoenician language.
Scholarship seems to have proved it, whether or not you
Ernest Cline scripsit:
Defining Europe is vague.
Well, Michael Everson back in 1995 defined it thus:
Europe extends from the Arctic and Atlantic (including
Iceland and the Faroe Islands) southeastwards to the
Mediterranean (including Malta and Cyprus), with its
Excuse me? This is a 22-character script with one-to-one correspondence
with a preëncoded script, that uses the same sounds as that script and
even the same spelling in the major languages that use that script, and
which people who work with the older version generally encode in the newer
on 2004-05-02 16:26 Michael Everson wrote:
Children learning about the history of their alphabets
I've been following this discussion off and on, and figured I didn't
have much to add, but I can relate to this remark. I was a child, once,
and I had a fascination with scripts and languages that
John Cowan cowan at ccil dot org wrote:
Catalan is not Spanish, and has its own code.
Yes, of course, I missed that. If you really meant Catalan (not
Castilian), substitute ca-whatever for es-whatever.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Michael Everson scripsit:
Scholarship seems to have proved it, whether or not you believe it.
Well, we have heard about part of the dispute.
It follows therefore (though not if you don't believe it, I suppose)
that unifying Square Hebrew (which we have encoded in Unicode) with
the
Doug Ewell scripsit:
Neither ISO 3166-3 nor (perhaps more annoyingly) ISO 3166-2 codes are
allowed in RFC 3066 language tags. So at least in that context, there
is no possibility of confusing them with ISO 15924 script codes.
Actually, anything can be used in RFC 3066 if it's registered. We
Philippe Verdy verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
Unicode itself does not define scripts. It just uses one or more ISO
15924 scripts (criture) to unify them into the same Unicode script
block by sharing the same code points for characters considered,
bibliographically, as distinct
[Original Message]
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ernest Cline scripsit:
Defining Europe is vague.
Well, Michael Everson back in 1995 defined it thus:
Europe extends from the Arctic and Atlantic (including
Iceland and the Faroe Islands) southeastwards to the
It is nice to join this forum and hope to gain and contribute to discussions
here. I am Dele Olawole, the CEO of D-Net Communications www.dnetcom.com
based in Norway. My involvement with developing Africa related contents
offer me the opportunity to go into developing African fonts with special
78 matches
Mail list logo
