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
Peter Kirk 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, which is not only co
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
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 D
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 h
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 behavio
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 informat
On 01/05/2004 11:21, Rick McGowan wrote:
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
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
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 14:09, [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/
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.
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
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 script should not be called Engl
> 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.
--
___
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 * * http://www.evertype.com
> (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 usi
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
- 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 con
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
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
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
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 charact
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 ident
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 discussi
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 prop
26 matches
Mail list logo
