At 07:39 AM 12/29/2003, Michael Everson wrote:
I also think that your attitude is that of a Hellenist or
Indo-Europeanist, who looks at everything from the perspective of Athens.
Think what you like.
Semitics is "Praeparatio Hellenika"--its other aspects are less
important, and
hence not to be
I don't really see this either, but even if it's correct, aren't
Hellenists and Indo-Europeanists supposed to be supported by Unicode
too? Maybe that's the elusive user-base?
~mark
On 12/29/03 10:39, Michael Everson wrote:
At 06:40 -0800 2003-12-29, Elaine Keown wrote:
I also think that your
At 06:40 -0800 2003-12-29, Elaine Keown wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
> And the mother of those scripts is Phoenician. She is *not* Hebrew.
The mother script is probably the southern Sinai or Wadi el-Hol
script, written in about 1,700 B.C.E. by Aramaeans who worked either
in the copper mines of
Elaine Keown
still in Texas
Dear Michael Everson and Lists:
Michael Everson wrote:
> And the mother of those scripts is Phoenician. She
is
> *not* Hebrew.
The mother script is probably the southern Sinai or
Wadi el-Hol script, written in about 1,700 B.C.E. by
Aramaeans who
Elaine Keown
Dear Christopher John Fynn:
> > they had different opinions at Harvard and at
> > UChicago. I
> How about in European and Middle Eastern
> Universities?
I didn't have the motivation to pursue the earlier
material because there were only tiny scraps of text
and they w
Elaine Keown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have only heard that they had
> different opinions at Harvard and at UChicago. I
> don't know (sorry) how these texts are viewed at Johns
> Hopkins.
How about in European and Middle Eastern Universities?
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
This is a particularly cogent point. The Mishna (c. 1st century C.E.)
does explicitly distinguish between Paleo-Hebrew and Square Hebrew
(tractate Yadayim 4:5). That's not a font-difference, that's a
script-difference, I think.
There were no such things as fonts in the
At 06:57 AM 12/26/2003, Michael Everson wrote:
Every historian of writing describes the various scripts *as* scripts, and
recognizes them differently. We have bilinguals where people are
distinguishing the scripts in text; we have discussion, for instance in
the Babylonian Talmud, specifically
> I guess we'd just have to make sure that
> people doing scholarly work in Semitic languages know to use Hebrew all
> the time (they already know that), no matter what the language.
؟
On 12/26/03 09:57, Michael Everson wrote:
Every historian of writing describes the various scripts *as* scripts,
and recognizes them differently. We have bilinguals where people are
distinguishing the scripts in text; we have discussion, for instance
in the Babylonian Talmud, specifically discu
Elaine Keown
still in Texas
Dear Michael Everson, Dean Snyder, and Lists:
I am grateful that Michael Everson chose to share his
thinking (and, I guess, that of Rick McGowan and Ken
Whistler) on Semitic alphabet(s) with us. I had been
wondering for a long time where the Roadmap ideas
At 02:23 -0500 2003-12-26, Dean Snyder wrote:
If you are thinking of chronology and mean that Phoenician came
first, most scholars would agree with you.
I too am a scholar, Dean.
But I would ask, so what? What does chronological priority have to
do with establishing separate encodings?
The sour
Michael Everson wrote to the Unicode email list at 8:44 PM on Wednesday,
December 24, 2003:
>There is zero chance that Phoenician will be considered to be a glyph
>variant of Hebrew. Zero chance.
If you are thinking of chronology and mean that Phoenician came first,
most scholars would agree wi
13 matches
Mail list logo
