Elaine Keown --- Tucson
Hi,
I do see that Deborah Anderson has posted a request for comments on the Phoenician proposal (appended below) to some Ancient Near Eastern email lists to which I subscribe. I think this is a great idea, except for the request that all responses be sent to her or to two
Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya dot org wrote:
You are confusing language and script. I am not encoding the
Phoenician language. ...
No, I am not, despite you and James trying to claim that I am, and
despite your attempt to label a script with the name of just one of
the
languages using it,
Peter Kirk wrote,
That might help, but living users are better than ones long dead.
If you ask us to dig up members of a dead script's user community,
it shouldn't surprise if we use a shovel.
Best regards,
James Kass
On 02/05/2004 16:26, Michael Everson wrote:
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. ...
No, I am not, despite
On 03/05/2004 15:33, Simon Montagu wrote:
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
At 10:12 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
OK, if you say so, but then, name names, or at least demonstrate the
truth of this statement. According to your proposal, you have not
been in contact with any users of the Phoenician script, but I
suppose you could still know who they are. But then
At 22:01 -0700 2004-05-02, Doug Ewell wrote:
Speaking of which, I'm still not happy with the silent change in the
Unicode interpretation, introduced in version 4.0.1, of the 15924 code
Hrkt:
Old meaning: Hiragana AND Katakana; text contains characters from both
syllabaries.
New meaning: Hiragana
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
(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 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.
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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 proposal is not a new proposal. Phoenician
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
I don't believe that anyone has any realistic technical
objection to Michael's proposal in any detail, and
since it is clear that failing any technical flaw the
proposal will proceed to be approved by the character
encoding committees...
At the risk of launching the
From: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nothing, to my mind, illustrates the utter aridity of the
discussion that has been going on today than the fact that
the essential core of the encoding proposal for Phoenician
has lain dormant for 12 years with *NO* controversy about
the identity of
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
Nothing, to my mind, illustrates the utter aridity of the
discussion that has been going on today than the fact that
the essential core of the encoding proposal for Phoenician
has lain dormant for 12 years with *NO* controversy about
the identity of the characters.
34 matches
Mail list logo
