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
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
Elaine Keown --- Tucson, Arizona
Hi,
Peter Kirk wrote:
>The question is, is it a >separate script, or is it a set of variant glyphs for what should be a >unified 22 character Semitic script (although currently known as >Hebrew)? This question of unification or disunification needs to be
At 11:30 -0700 2004-05-06, E. Keown wrote:
The logical implication of Everson's work is that part of the Dead
Sea Scrolls and all the Samaritan material and all other material of
that type, should be encoded in his proposed block.
No, Elaine. The implication is that there are two scripts there wh
Michael Everson scripsit:
> At 11:30 -0700 2004-05-06, E. Keown wrote:
>
> >The logical implication of Everson's work is that part of the Dead
> >Sea Scrolls and all the Samaritan material and all other material of
> >that type, should be encoded in his proposed block.
>
> No, Elaine. The impl
On 02/05/2004 16:32, Michael Everson wrote:
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 bef
On 02/05/2004 17:35, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
Please be polite Peter. You're talking to the official registrar appointed by
Unicode, the ISO 15924 Registration Agency.
Well, Michael is only the registrar. ISO 15924 will continue to have more
details about what is considered as a separate script fo
> 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
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
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
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,
#x27;ll make that near the top of my to read list then.
> >and not for example some other proposal that would say, encode Punic
> >as the branch as treat the square Hebrew script as the rightful
> >continuation of the original Phoenician script.
>
> Samaritan would be the mos
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 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
demonstrate
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 resea
John Hudson 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 not the only possib
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 Un
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&
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
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 "s
20 matches
Mail list logo
