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 to
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 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 SÃtterlin, as you said,
> because it
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.
Both
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
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 c
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 around
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 (lir
> [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 characte
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 Sütter
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 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 Latin.
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...) Y
> [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
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 orthog
Doug Ewell a Ãcrit :
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 SÃtterlin, as you said,
because it is not a styli
Patrick Andries 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 scripts (Latin and
> Fraktur)...
> [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 w
"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 unificatio
> [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 e
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
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
Hebrew.
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
Suett
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 non-Rashi-educ
"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 t
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 unimplementable on the other.
To wit, altho
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,
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
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 -- withi
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 lan
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
- 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 recogni
> 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
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
Su
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 nativ
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 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
PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL 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
> cursiv
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
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 writt
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
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
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
But Hebrew has 27 letters. Five appear in 2 forms which are recognized
both by the users and by Unicode as distinct.
Taken literally this would mean 32 forms altogether. A better statement
of the situation is that Hebrew has 22 letters. Five of them appear in 2
forms and
Doug Ewell a Ãcrit :
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 di
Peter Kirk 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 unified?
As I've said b
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 mappin
> > 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 Infras
- 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 h
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
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 decli
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
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 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 09:20 -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 Phoenician
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. So
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 Hebre
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
might
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 hav
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 England,
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 actual
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 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 scri
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
> separate
Patrick Andries a Ãcrit :
Mark E. Shoulson a Ãcrit :
> Well, it doesn't need to be a wedding invitation, does it? I'll give
it a try;
> I've downloaded a SÃtterlin 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
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 it
> 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
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]>
> 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
"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.
>
> >V
> Vietnamese in SÃtterlin ought to be an interesting challenge, because
> (as those of you who can read SÃtterlin 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
Peter Kirk 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 SÃtterlin,
and Fraktur too w
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 dif
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, Samarit
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 "
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 l
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
> 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 charac
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 dif
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, and literature.
And a bar
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/05/2004 19:03, Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:25 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
It is not possible to take an encoded Genesis text which is pointed
and cantillated, and blithly change the font to Moabite or Punic
and expect anyone to even recognize it as Hebrew.
Michae
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 10:56 AM on Tuesday, May 4, 2004:
>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, behaviorall
Peter Kirk wrote at 9:31 AM on Tuesday, May 4, 2004:
>>If Phoenician is considered a glyphic variation of modern Hebrew, then
>>it can also be considered a glyphic variation of modern Greek. Would
>>it then follow that modern Greek should have been unified with modern
>>Hebrew? (Directionality a
Michael Everson wrote at 9:47 AM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
>Square Hebrew has accrued to it an enormous
>typographical complexity, none of which applies
>to the scripts we propose to unify under
>Phoenician. It is false to suggest that
>fully-pointed Hebrew text can be rendered in
>Phoenician
John Hudson wrote:
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
D. Starner wrote:
Hebrew has the same 22 characters, with the same character properties.
But Hebrew has 27 letters. Five appear in 2 forms which are recognized
both by the users and by Unicode as distinct.
~mark
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/05/2004 05:19, Michael Everson wrote:
... Germans who don't read SÃtterlin recognize it as what it is -- a
hard-to-read way that everyone used to write German not so long ago.
And modern Hebrews recognise paleo-Hebrew as a now hard-to-read way that
everyone used to write H
Peter Constable wrote at 8:58 AM on Tuesday, May 4, 2004:
>Ah, so the next protracted debate is going to be whether Samaritan
>should also be encoded using the existing square Hebrew characters.
>Since it would appear that the argument for unification of PH with
>Hebrew could also argue for unific
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 12:44 PM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
>Please take a look at the attached screen shot taken from:
>
>www.yahweh.org/publications/sny/sn09Chap.pdf
>
>If anyone can look at the text in the screen shot and honestly
>say that they do not believe that it should be possible to
>en
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
I'd be interested in such a building. Anyplace still using Phoenician
script? Aside from the Samaritans, whose script has evolved some as
well... Wow.
Yes, "Wow" was exactly my reaction too. I've put some pictures up at
http://www.smontagu.org/PalaeoHebrew/
It's inter
Michael Everson wrote at 9:26 AM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
>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 identi
Michael Everson wrote at 8:19 AM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
>Phoenician script, on the other hand, is so
>different that its use renders a ritual scroll
>unclean.
I'm just guessing that the same thing would be true for modern cursive
Hebrew?
Regardless, since when is the ritual uncleanness of f
Michael Everson wrote at 11:07 AM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
>If you think that a Hebrew Gemara, with its baroque and
>wonderful typographic richness, can be represented in a Phoenician
>font, then you might as well give up using Unicode and go back to
>8859 font switching and font hacks for Indic
Peter Kirk writes:
> Resending this and several other messages which I sent about 24 hours
> ago, I thought before the server was supposed to have been switched off,
> but which don't seem to have appeared on the system.
They appeared on my system. I can tell you, there's nothing I enjoy more
th
D. Starner wrote at 8:37 PM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
>I mean, maybe you're right and Phonecian has glyph forms too far from
>Hebrew's to be useful ...
I thought it might be useful, even for those who are relishing the
"immunity of the ill-informed" with regard to West Semitic scripts, to
provide s
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/05/2004 19:03, Michael Everson wrote:
Wedding invitations are routinely set in Blackletter and Gaelic
typefaces. I bet you Â20 that if an ordinary Hebrew speaker sent out
a wedding invitation in Palaeo-Hebrew no one would turn up on the day.
And I bet you Â20 that is an o
Patrick,
On 4 May 2004, at 21:27, Patrick Andries wrote:
Patrick Andries a écrit :
Christian Cooke a écrit :
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
Dean Snyder scripsit:
> In gross terms, I would characterize the watershed events in "scripts"
> used to write Hebrew as:
>
> 1) adoption of the Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet
>
> 2) adoption, around the time of the Babylonian exile, of Imperial Aramaic
> script (coupled with some portions of the
Patrick Andries a écrit :
Christian Cooke a écrit :
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 th
Michael Everson wrote at 7:21 AM on Tuesday, May 4, 2004:
>No, Proto-Sinaitic is out, actually, though it's still in the Summary
>Form by accident.
For similar reasons, Proto-Canaanite should be out.
Respectfully,
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
C
on" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tue, 2004 May 04 12:51
Subject: Re: New contribution
> Michael Everson scripsit:
>
> > Well. Depends what you mean by "forms". Our taxonomy currently lists
> > Samaritan, Square Hebrew, Arabic, Syri
1 - 100 of 465 matches
Mail list logo
