http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/~pandries/suetterlin.jpg
I did German in high school (in Australia, thirty years ago), and I
recognize the text as being in German, mostly because I can recognize
a few words. We looked only briefly at Fraktur, and never had to read
a significant amount. I don't expect
Patrick Andries Patrick dot Andries at xcential dot com wrote:
It's clear to me that the reason my colleague and I can read this
font is not that we have any special knowledge of both scripts, but
because it's a stylistic variant of Latin.
And thus he cannot read a Vietnamese text in
Dean Snyder wrote,
2 Greeks are better sailors.
Evidence supporting this can be seen here:
http://www.greekshops.com/images/ChildrensVideoDVD/popayvideo.jpg
It was a troll.
And a good one!
Best regards,
James Kass
Patrick Andries Patrick dot Andries at xcential dot com wrote:
... He had absolutely no problem reading the Fraktur, and said there
are plenty of examples of Fraktur in Vietnam (mostly decorative, or
in documents from the 1950s and earlier).
Which could maybe only show that he knows both
Doug Ewell a crit :
It's clear to me that the reason my colleague and I can read this font
is not that we have any special knowledge of both scripts, but because
it's a stylistic variant of Latin.
And thus he cannot read a Vietnamese text in Stterlin, as you said,
because it is not a
From: Ernest Cline [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Besides, I think unifying the phonetic
symbols with Latin was a mistake done solely to ease the transition
from legacy encodings.)
But the phonetics notation allowed by IPA is still useful to represent languages
that still don't have a defined orthography.
[Original Message]
From: Philippe Verdy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Ernest Cline [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Besides, I think unifying the phonetic
symbols with Latin was a mistake done solely to ease the transition
from legacy encodings.)
But the phonetics notation allowed by IPA is still useful
Ernest Cline wrote:
I never said IPA wasn't useful, I just think it would have been better if
it had
been defined as separate script and when an IPA symbol turned into a
cased Latin letter pair, to have added two letters instead of one.
Viva Visible Speech! (We're working on the proposal...)
At 11:07 -0400 2004-05-07, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Viva Visible Speech! (We're working on the proposal...) Yeah, it
would almost have been more sensible if IPA had been a unique
alphabet, not sharing its characters (or for that matter even its
glyphs) with anyone else.
Except that it's
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
Still, even with potential glyph unifications of
distinct characters, if Phoenician is unifiable with
Hebrew, one should be able
to come up with a system for Phoenician that would
incorporate
Every year before Thanksgiving, the SBL (Society of
At 04:36 AM 5/7/2004, Patrick Andries wrote:
Doug Ewell a écrit :
It's clear to me that the reason my colleague and I can read this font
is not that we have any special knowledge of both scripts, but because
it's a stylistic variant of Latin.
And thus he cannot read a Vietnamese text in
[Original Message]
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:07 -0400 2004-05-07, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Viva Visible Speech! (We're working on the proposal...) Yeah, it
would almost have been more sensible if IPA had been a unique
alphabet, not sharing its characters (or for
On 06/05/2004 19:21, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Playing hide and seek on the graveyards wrote:
Are those mere Italian pounds or Israeli pounds of 100 agora?
For the value of the agora see 1 Sam. 2:36
Israel stopped using Israeli pounds in 1980. (well, they started
using Sheqels then; pounds
On 06/05/2004 22:06, Ernest Cline wrote:
... and the position of the
vowel points is the chief difficulty one would have in unifying Hebrew
with any glyph repertoire that doesn't already have them.
This is very puzzling to me. What is the difficulty in positioning
Hebrew vowel points
Ernest said:
I never said IPA wasn't useful, I just think it would have been better if
it had
been defined as separate script
This was argued ab extenso in 1989/1990, and the committee came down on the
side you now represented in the standard. Rehashing this 15 years later
isn't going to
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
Debbie Anderson wrote:
I am in support of the Phoenician proposal.
Elaine Keown wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression
that Dr. Anderson is an unusual scholar of Greek. I
think she does much older (and far more interesting, I
would
At 14:25 -0400 2004-05-07, Ernest Cline wrote:
If the IPA is Latin, then so is Fraser.
Nope.
IIRC (altho I'm only 60-70% certain I am recalling correctly here
that it was you and not someone else on this list) you indicated
that you believe Fraser should be a separate script.
I do indeed.
Ernest Cline [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't aware that there was an ARABIC SMALL LETTER D to add
a curl to,
There wasn't a Devanagari question mark to make a glottal stop
out of, but the Latin glottal stop was added to Devanagari anyway.
Still, even with potential glyph unifications of
[Original Message]
From: D. Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ernest Cline [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't aware that there was an ARABIC SMALL LETTER D to add
a curl to,
There wasn't a Devanagari question mark to make a glottal stop
out of, but the Latin glottal stop was added to
Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya dot org wrote:
Well, because Latin was encoded first, Fraktur was not separately
encoded as derived from Latin. But if, by some historical accident,
Fraktur had been encoded first, would it have been necessary to encode
Latin separately, or could they have been
Doug Ewell a crit :
As I've said before, I don't know enough about the historical
relationship between Phoenician and Hebrew to get involved in this
bloodbath. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how Fraktur keeps
getting dragged into it. For heaven's sake, it's not THAT
unrecognizably
At 10:41 -0700 2004-05-06, Jim Allan wrote:
Similarly _v_ and _u_ were for long only used as positional variants.
Not in a universal and sytematized way by any means.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Jim Allan a écrit :
Similarly _v_ and _u_ were for long only used as positional variants.
For very long, which explains for example why French has a non
etymological h in « huile » (oil) : to distinguish vile (she-bad) and
vile (oil) written the same way but pronounced differently when the h
Patrick Andries scripsit:
The same is true for huit (8) / vit (he lives or virile member) , huitre
(oyster) / vitre (window pane), huis (door) / vis (you (sing.) live,
live ! or screw), etc.
Similarly, English final -u/v was always interpreted as u, so phonetically
final v had to be written
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
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New contribution
...
2. Encode a separate repertoire for each stylistically
distinct abjad ever recorded in the history of Aramaic
studies, from Proto-Canaanite to modern Hebrew (and toss in
cursive Hebrew, for that matter), starting with Tables 5.1
At 21:13 +0200 2004-05-06, Jony Rosenne wrote:
Cursive Hebrew, Rashi and Square Hebrew are only font variations and should
not be separately encoded.
I agree.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
On 05/05/2004 11:02, Michael Everson wrote:
At 09:15 -0700 2004-05-05, Peter Kirk wrote:
Soem American native speakers of English might have trouble
recognising English written in Celtic type script. You would find
much less such difficulty among native speakers of English in Ireland.
Sometimes
At 10:45 -0700 2004-05-06, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 05/05/2004 11:02, Michael Everson wrote:
At 09:15 -0700 2004-05-05, Peter Kirk wrote:
Soem American native speakers of English might have trouble
recognising English written in Celtic type script. You would find
much less such difficulty among
Peter Kirk a écrit :
OK, maybe not such a good example. So let's go back to Suetterlin. I
would expect a much higher rate of recognition among German users of
normal Latin script than among American users of normal Latin script.
So a test of recognition in America might seem to indicate that
OK, maybe not such a good example. So let's go back to Suetterlin.
Haven't we had enough of these thought experiments?
Peter
Peter Constable
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
- Original Message -
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: New contribution
At 10:25 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
[ ... ]
But this text would be easily recognisable and
readable by anyone familiar
Elaine Keown --- Tucson
Hi,
Peter Kirk wrote, This is based on a historically unproven assumption that this script originated with the Phoenicians. I don't think it's even true that the oldest surviving texts in this script are Phoenician. Would the oldest surviving texts in the Phoenician
Elaine Keown
Tucson, Arizona
Hi,
From: Mark Davis ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 11:28:42 CDT
The question for me is whether the scholarly
representations of the Phoenician would vary enough
that in order to represent the palæo-Hebrew (or the
other
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
From: Michael Everson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 20:56:38 CDT
Semiticists seem to transliterate Phoenican-script
text into Latin or Hebrew, and do not normally use
the Phoenician glyphs at all.
What Semitists do varies -- within a
Elaine Keown
Tucson
hi,
From: Peter Constable ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 09:11:35 CDT
What are the directional properties of Pheonician? Is
it RTL only, or
was it ever written with a different directionality?
One of the minor problems with 'Old Canaanite'
Elaine Keown in Tucson
Hi,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 10:09:08 CDT
Peter Constable scripsit:
What are the directional properties of Pheonician?
Is it RTL only, or was it ever written with a
different directionality?
John Cowan wrote:
It's RTL only, except to
Ernest Cline [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In dubious hopes of ending this argument, let me offer up the following
thought experiment. Normal Latin script, Gaelic, and Fraktur while they
have all diverged to a certain extent, have not diverged to the point
where additions made to one of them is
Jony Rosenne wrote:
Cursive Hebrew, Rashi and Square Hebrew are only font variations and should
not be separately encoded.
Definitely. If you tried my experiment with examples from these or
other Hebrew fonts, people would have no trouble reading them. Even
Rashi script with
Peter Kirk wrote:
OK, maybe not such a good example. So let's go back to Suetterlin. I
would expect a much higher rate of recognition among German users of
normal Latin script than among American users of normal Latin script.
So a test of recognition in America might seem to indicate that
E. Keown wrote:
What Semitists do varies -- within a Ph.D. class,
where they are teaching students to recognize many
older variant glyphs, they may give many handouts with
sets of glyphs...
Within publications, which are not for specialists in
early Canaanite, they do usually use square
Playing hide and seek on the graveyards wrote:
Are those mere Italian pounds or Israeli pounds of 100 agora?
For the value of the agora see 1 Sam. 2:36
Israel stopped using Israeli pounds in 1980. (well, they started using
Sheqels then; pounds (lira) were still legal tender until 1984.)
~mark
[Original Message]
From: D. Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ernest Cline [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In dubious hopes of ending this argument, let me offer up the following
thought experiment. Normal Latin script, Gaelic, and Fraktur while they
have all diverged to a certain extent, have not
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of D. Starner
Again, no, you can't use archaic forms
of letters in many situations, but that doesn't mean they aren't
unified with the modern forms of letters.
On what basis would we consider that the modern form of the characters
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,
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
I have a Tiqqun with pointed and cantillated STAM text, and it isn't the
only one I've seen.
Cool. Can you give me the bibliographic information? Thanks.
I'm giving up on the Phoenecian / Not Phoenician debate: nothing new is being said now,
and the arguments are getting
John Cowan wrote:
Dean Snyder scripsit:
3) adoption of the various supra-consonantal vowel and accent systems
4) The abandonment of most of the apparatus introduced in step 3, as far
as productive use of the script is concerned, reverting to the 22CWSA.
I don't think that it can be described as
At 08:58 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Constable wrote:
Item 1, I think we'd agree, is just wrong. Item 2 is probably true.
But is it enough to refer to square Hebrew as the modern form of
Phoenician (Old Canaanite, whatever you want to call it)?
Well, one of the two modern forms, Samaritan being
Mark Davis wrote at 8:22 PM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
- There is a cost to deunification. To take an extreme case, suppose that we
deunified Rustics, Roman Uncials, Irish Half-Uncial, Carolingian Minuscule,
Textura, Fraktur, Humanist, Chancery (Italic), and English Roundhand. All
often
very
Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya dot org wrote:
A lot of Vietnamese people would not recognise accentless Suetterlin
as Vietnamese, they might well guess it was a quite different script.
But Suetterlin and Vietnamese are unified.
OK, I'm about this close to setting some Vietnamese text in
Vietnamese in Stterlin ought to be an interesting challenge, because
(as those of you who can read Stterlin know) the 'u' has a breve over
it to distinguish it from an 'n', and in Vietnamese the letter 'a' can
have a real breve over it, but 'u' cannot.
That wouldn't be a problem once you knew
Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:34 -0700 2004-04-29, Peter Kirk wrote:
But do scholars and the Pali Text Society encode the texts in Latin
and then use masquerading fonts or whatever to render the texts in
whichever script they prefer to?
Certainly not.
Very likely they
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Everson scripsit:
Well. Depends what you mean by forms. Our taxonomy currently lists
Samaritan, Square Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, and Mandaic as modern (RTL)
forms of the parent Phoenician.
Arabic and Syriac have very specialized shaping behavior which makes
Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 12:11 AM on Wednesday, May 5, 2004:
The Samaritan newsletter A-B is available both in Square Hebrew and in
Samaritan-script editions.
Which, by the way, is an argument AGAINST encoding Canaanite/Phoenician
separately from Hebrew AND encoding Samaritan separately from
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Dean Snyder
The Samaritan newsletter A-B is available both in Square Hebrew and
in
Samaritan-script editions.
Which, by the way, is an argument AGAINST encoding
Canaanite/Phoenician
separately from Hebrew AND encoding
Patrick Andries a crit :
Mark E. Shoulson a crit :
Well, it doesn't need to be a wedding invitation, does it? I'll give
it a try;
I've downloaded a Stterlin font, and I'll type up a small document and
see if I can get some English-readers to read it or recognize it.
Even if they can't read
Simon Montagu wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
Dean Snyder scripsit:
3) adoption of the various supra-consonantal vowel and accent systems
4) The abandonment of most of the apparatus introduced in step 3, as far
as productive use of the script is concerned, reverting to the 22CWSA.
I don't think that
Dean Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 12:11 AM on Wednesday, May 5, 2004:
The Samaritan newsletter A-B is available both in Square Hebrew and in
Samaritan-script editions.
Which, by the way, is an argument AGAINST encoding Canaanite/Phoenician
separately from
On 04/05/2004 11:23, John Hudson wrote:
Christian Cooke wrote:
Surely a cipher is by definition after the event, i.e. there must
be the parent script before the child. ...
Well, Samaritan script is used as a cipher for English although arguably
the Samaritan script is older than the Latin
On 04/05/2004 10:16, Dominikus Scherkl (MGW) wrote:
How do you distinguish those scripts that are rejected as 'ciphers'
of other scripts from those which you want to encode, if 1:1 correspondence
is not sufficient grounds for unification but visual dissimilarity
is grounds for disunification?
On 04/05/2004 16:43, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
...
Thanks for the data. These are I suppose American Jews. A fairer test
might be among Israeli native speakers of Hebrew.
OK, then. That's what I did today. And to make sure that it wasn't
my faulty handwriting, I used an
On 04/05/2004 14:44, Dean Snyder wrote:
...
2 Greeks are better sailors.
...
Your other reasons are good, but this one seems dubious. The Phoenicians
dominated the Mediterranean, and the Greeks got a look in only when the
Phoenicians declined, surely? And the Greek never got as far as
On 04/05/2004 12:06, Michael Everson wrote:
At 09:47 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/05/2004 19:04, Michael Everson wrote:
At 09:41 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
If your support had been cited in the original proposal with your
arguments, rather a lot of spilled electrons could
On 04/05/2004 11:52, Michael Everson wrote:
At 09:43 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Kirk wrote:
Mark Shoulson did a test today with a group of well-educated young
Hebrew-speaking computer programmers. They did not recognize it.
Thanks for the data. These are I suppose American Jews. A fairer test
At 07:45 -0400 2004-05-05, Dean Snyder wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 12:11 AM on Wednesday, May 5, 2004:
The Samaritan newsletter A-B is available both in Square Hebrew and in
Samaritan-script editions.
Which, by the way, is an argument AGAINST encoding Canaanite/Phoenician
separately from
At 09:10 -0700 2004-05-05, Peter Kirk wrote:
Or that the Hebrew block should have been called West Semitic or
something of the sort, which would unify Phoenician with Hebrew. No
smileys, I'm serious. As I understand it, block names can be changed
although individual character names cannot be.
At 09:20 -0700 2004-05-05, Peter Kirk wrote:
Proper justification of a proposal is always important. The UTC now
and in the future needs to be able to demonstrate that it acted
fairly e.g. in rejecting Klingon, accepting Coptic disunification
from Greek, and whatever it does decide on
At 09:15 -0700 2004-05-05, Peter Kirk wrote:
Soem American native speakers of English might have trouble
recognising English written in Celtic type script. You would find
much less such difficulty among native speakers of English in
Ireland.
Sometimes people have trouble reading the traditional
At 09:42 -0700 2004-05-05, Peter Kirk wrote:
OK, then. That's what I did today. And to make sure that it
wasn't my faulty handwriting, I used an actual image from the
Shiloam inscription. They couldn't read it, they didn't know what
it was. They were turning it around trying to decide which
At 23:07 -0700 2004-05-04, John Hudson wrote:
I'm giving up on the Phoenecian / Not Phoenician debate.
So am I. There will be a revision of the proposal.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Peter Kirk wrote at 9:31 AM on Wednesday, May 5, 2004:
On 04/05/2004 14:44, Dean Snyder wrote:
2 Greeks are better sailors.
Your other reasons are good, but this one seems dubious. The Phoenicians
dominated the Mediterranean, and the Greeks got a look in only when the
Phoenicians declined,
Michael Everson wrote at 1:58 PM on Wednesday, May 5, 2004:
At 09:10 -0700 2004-05-05, Peter Kirk wrote:
As I understand it, block names can be changed
although individual character names cannot be. So the block could be
renamed Hebrew and Canaanite or something of the sort.
Never in a
- Original Message -
From: D. Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: New contribution
A possible question to ask which is blatantly leading would be:
Would you have any objections if your bibliographic database
I'm not really all that interested in the justifications per se.
Proper justification of a proposal is always important...
Don't worry; what Michael is expressing here is his personal opinion and
interests, not the policy of either UTC or WG2.
Peter
Peter Constable
Globalization
Elaine Keown Tucson
Hi,
Peter Constable wrote: Unless there are behaviours in Phoenician that distinguish it from Hebrew. S. Montagu wrote:
Phoenician lacks Hebrew's separate forms for medial and final kaf, mem, nun, pe and tsadi, so there is not an exact one-to-one mapping.
Hebrew
Michael Everson wrote:
No Georgian can read Nuskhuri without a key. I maintain that no Hebrew
reader can read Phoenician without a key. I maintain that it is
completely unacceptable to represent Yiddish text in a Phoenician font
and have anyone recognize it at all.
But no one is going to do
Michael Everson wrote:
Hebrew has the same 22 characters, with the same character properties.
And a baroque set of additional marks and signs, none of which apply to
any of the Phoenician letterforms, EVER, in the history of typography,
reading, and literature.
And a baroque set of additional
Michael Everson wrote:
If you people, after all of this discussion, can think that it is
possible to print a newspaper article in Hebrew language or Yiddish in
Phoenician letters, then all I can say is that understanding of the
fundamentals of script identity is at an all-time low. I'm really
Mark Davis wrote:
The question for me is whether the scholarly representations of the Phoenician
would vary enough that in order to represent the palo-Hebrew (or the other
language/period variants), one would need to have font difference anyway. If so,
then it doesn't buy much to encode separately
03/05/2004 05:19, Michael Everson wrote:
Suetterlin.
Oh shut UP about Sütterlin already. I don't know where you guys come
up with this stuff. Sütterlin is a kind of stylized handwriting based on
Fraktur letterforms and ductus. It is hard to read. It is not hard to
learn, ...
Since when is
At 23:08 -0400 2004-05-03, John Cowan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
Those objections are quite generic and could be made just as well
for N'ko, Ol Cemet', Egyptian Hieroglyphics, c.
But there is no clear-cut alternative for any of those. N'ko encoding
is font-kludge, Unicode, or nothing.
At 03:01 + 2004-05-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Cowan wrote,
(And to the last, I'd be tempted to add: If so, what on Earth could those
objections be?)
Expense. Complication. Delays while the encoding gets into the Standard
and thence into popular operating systems, with all the
At 20:37 -0800 2004-05-03, D. Starner wrote:
Again, change Hebrew to Latin and palaeo-Hebrew to Fraktur and see
how many objections you get.
I should think far fewer; the legibility quotient is much different.
I have said before:
Set a German or Danish or Icelandic wedding invitation in Fraktur.
At 11:42 -0700 2004-05-03, John Hudson wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
Hebrew has the same 22 characters, with the same character properties.
And a baroque set of additional marks and signs, none of which
apply to any of the Phoenician letterforms, EVER, in the history of
typography, reading,
A possible question to ask which is blatantly leading would be:
Would you have any objections if your bibliographic database
application suddenly began displaying all of your Hebrew
book titles using the palaeo-Hebrew script rather than
the modern Hebrew
At 12:13 -0700 2004-05-03, John Hudson wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
No Georgian can read Nuskhuri without a key. I maintain that no
Hebrew reader can read Phoenician without a key. I maintain that it
is completely unacceptable to represent Yiddish text in a
Phoenician font and have anyone
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of John Hudson
No Georgian can read Nuskhuri without a key. I maintain that no
Hebrew
reader can read Phoenician without a key. I maintain that it is
completely unacceptable to represent Yiddish text in a Phoenician
font
and
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Francois Yergeau
Suppose I were to float a proposal to encode Old Latin, consisting of
the
original 23-letter unicameral alphabet. Try this on for size:
It is false to suggest that
fully-[accented, cased Vietnamese] text
Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 02/05/2004 11:57, Deborah W. Anderson wrote:
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.
Thank you, Deborah. You have given what is to me a much
John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[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:
What are the directional properties of Pheonician? Is it RTL only, or
was it ever written with a different directionality?
Peter Constable
Peter Constable wrote:
the Old Latin doesn't have the accents, but if you
used the 23
uni-cameral characters for Vietnamese text, then surely a Vietnamese
speaker would recognize it as caseless Vietnamese with the accents
stripped off.
...
So, while Michael's argument was flawed in the way
Peter Constable scripsit:
2) the characters in question are structurally / behaviourally very
similar to square Hebrew characters, but not to the characters of other
scripts
Not just very similar: structurally, behaviorally, and even phonemically
identical.
Item 1, I think we'd agree, is
Peter Constable scripsit:
What are the directional properties of Pheonician? Is it RTL only, or
was it ever written with a different directionality?
It's RTL only, except to the extent that you consider Archaic Greek a
script variant of Phoenician. :-)
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmmm, I'm not sure it's flawed. Sure, recognizability makes it
non-equivalent to the Phoenician-Hebrew case, but it still
demonstrates
that
a subset-superset relationship between purported scripts A and B does
not
make them distinct.
Whatever the logic in the examples, I certainly agree
Item 1, I think we'd agree, is just wrong. Item 2 is probably true.
But
is it enough to refer to square Hebrew as the modern form of
Phoenician (Old Canaanite, whatever you want to call it)?
Well, one of the two modern forms, Samaritan being the other.
Ah, so the next protracted debate
Michael Everson wrote:
No Georgian can read Nuskhuri without a key. I maintain that no
Hebrew reader can read Phoenician without a key. I maintain that it
is completely unacceptable to represent Yiddish text in a Phoenician
font and have anyone recognize it at all.
But no one is going to do
Hullo,
I'll claim the immunity of the ill-informed in contributing this but...
On 4 May 2004, at 17:04, John Hudson wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
No, it is not. If Phoenician letterforms are just a font variant of
Square Hebrew then it is reasonable to assume that readers of Square
Hebrew will
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
Christian Cooke wrote:
Surely a cipher is by definition after the event, i.e. there must be
the parent script before the child. Does it not follow that, by John's
reasoning, if one is no more than a cipher of the other then it is
Hebrew that is the cipher and so the only way Phoenician and
1 - 100 of 427 matches
Mail list logo
