I've just been reading over the discussion regarding Phoenician script
encoding that has been generated over the last few days.
As an 'expert', i.e. someone actually working with ancient languages,
can I put in a vote for Michael's proposal to encode the Phoenician
scrip
On 10/05/2004 22:22, Doug Ewell wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
And these two cases are hardly a good advertisement for the expert's
reputation. The Coptic/Greek unification proved to be ill-advised and
is being undone. As for the unified W and Q, well, I guess that if the
Kurds and others who use t
On 11/05/2004 08:25, Michael Everson wrote:
At 07:43 -0700 2004-05-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 08/05/2004 08:19, Michael Everson wrote:
Professional Semiticists are not the only surviving cultural owners
of the world's Middle Eastern historical cultural heritage.
Nor are you, Michael, or even yo
On 11/05/2004 06:44, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
But have the others agreed with his judgments because they are
convinced of their correctness? Or is it more that the others have
trusted the judgments of the one they consider to be an expert, and
have either not dared to stand up
.
But no one expert's understanding is perfect, and so their opinion needs
to be checked, wherever possible with members of the user community, or
of as many as possible of a range of user communities. This is what was
lacking with Phoenician, also apparently with Coptic (originally) and
Ku
Michael Everson Wrote:
> This sort
> of battle was fought over Runic: Runologists wanted the Runes to be
> sorted in Latin alphabetical order,
Yes, but there was no suggestion to interleave the Runes with
the Latin script. So the example of the Runes is not a parallel
to the current discussion.
At 11:25 +0200 2004-05-13, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Michael Everson Wrote:
This sort
of battle was fought over Runic: Runologists wanted the Runes to be
sorted in Latin alphabetical order,
Yes, but there was no suggestion to interleave the Runes with the
Latin script. So the example of the Runes is
In this case I don't understand Peter C's comment, unless he has made
the same mistake as me. When he wrote:
>I think one's track record in making judgments on boundary cases is
>established only after having successfully dealt with boundary cases --
>and enough to establish a level of confidence
On 09/05/2004 01:05, Peter Constable wrote:
I think one's track record in making judgments on boundary cases is
established only after having successfully dealt with boundary cases --
and enough to establish a level of confidence. Of things already in
Unicode, what have been boundary cases between
On 07/05/2004 15:59, Michael Everson wrote:
At 17:10 -0400 2004-05-07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would only be the *default* rules. Unicode-savvy sort programs can
accept "tailorings" that make the rules different, like the Swedish
tailoring
that makes a-ring, a-umlaut, and o-umlaut sort af
Peter Kirk wrote:
> And these two cases are hardly a good advertisement for the expert's
> reputation. The Coptic/Greek unification proved to be ill-advised and
> is being undone. As for the unified W and Q, well, I guess that if the
> Kurds and others who use these letters in Cyrillic knew how t
On 08/05/2004 11:42, John Cowan wrote:
Mark Davis scripsit:
- But I'm good at it, because invariably when I say it's a tree,
I agree with myself.
Hardly. If the rest of you hadn't agreed with his judgments most of the
time, the Roadmap might look quite different. It's more like Potter
S
On 08/05/2004 08:19, Michael Everson wrote:
At 16:59 -0700 2004-05-07, E. Keown wrote:
You seem to have learned a lot from Michael Everson. Your basic
procedure is simply to ignore all objections and pretend they are
stupid.
I have not ignored your objections. I have rejected them because the
At 07:34 -0700 2004-05-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
Is there any really good reason not to mix two scripts, which are
according to many people actually variants of one script but which
are (if your proposal is accepted) seperately encoded for the
convenience of some scholars?
Yes. The default template
Michael Everson wrote:
At 07:34 -0700 2004-05-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
Is there any really good reason not to mix two scripts, which are
according to many people actually variants of one script but which
are (if your proposal is accepted) seperately encoded for the
convenience of some scholars?
Christopher Fynn scripsit:
> OTOH applications that generate collated lists should ideally provide a
> straightforward means of applying special tailoring tables.
"Should ideally" are the operative words; in most cases, we're lucky
if we get default collating behavior rather than UTF-16 or U
Peter Kirk wrote:
But have the others agreed with his judgments because they are
convinced of their correctness? Or is it more that the others have
trusted the judgments of the one they consider to be an expert, and
have either not dared to stand up to him or have simply been
unqulified to do
On May 10, 2004, at 8:59 AM, Peter Kirk wrote:
And then there is the matter of CJK unification, which I gather is
still rather contentious.
No, not really. There are still some diehards, of course, but
by-and-large the furor has died down.
John H. Jenkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PRO
At 07:43 -0700 2004-05-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 08/05/2004 08:19, Michael Everson wrote:
Professional Semiticists are not the only surviving cultural owners
of the world's Middle Eastern historical cultural heritage.
Nor are you, Michael, or even you and your Indo-Europeanist friends.
So listen
> I can't believe I am reading this. Far more than anyone else, Michael
> has *always* supported the disunification of Coptic from Greek and of
> Kurdish Cyrillic Q and W from their Latin counterparts. They have
been
> two of his signature causes through the years.
Indeed, so. (Check your facts
> Yes. The default template is for default behaviour. Most people in
> the world use a tiny subset of characters available, and don't care
> much about what happens in scripts which are not their own.
So, if someone's data contains Phoenician but not Hebrew characters,
then
Title: RE: Phoenician
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Christopher Fynn
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:57 AM
> OTOH applications that generate collated lists should ideally
> provide a
> straightforward means of applying specia
Title: RE: Phoenician
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:48 AM
> > Yes. The default template is for default behaviour. Most people in
> > the world use a tiny subset of characters avai
"John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mon, 2004 May 10 07:48
Subject: Re: Phoenician
> On 08/05/2004 11:42, John Cowan wrote:
>
> >Mark Davis scripsit:
> >
> >
> >
>
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Dear Asmus Freytag:
> Becker's law:
>
> "For every expert there's an equal and opposite
> expert".
This saying is especially true within Semitics (I'm
sure).
But for me personally, my only interest is in database
functionality for Semitics.
As far a
I think one's track record in making judgments on boundary cases is
established only after having successfully dealt with boundary cases --
and enough to establish a level of confidence. Of things already in
Unicode, what have been boundary cases between unificiation and
de-unification?
The unifie
Peter Constable wrote,
> Of things already in
> Unicode, what have been boundary cases between unificiation and
> de-unification?
Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics? Old Italic?
Best regards,
James Kass
At 01:42 PM 5/8/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The above merely to illustrate that experts in any persuasion
seldom agree on everything; if they did -- they couldn't be
contentious.
Becker's law:
"For every expert there's an equal and opposite expert".
A./
The author of the web site "A Bequest Unearthed, Phoenicia"
( http://phoenicia.org )
has kindly given permission for his response to a request for comments
on the Phoenician proposal to be forwarded to Unicode's public list.
Best regards,
James Kass,
forwarded message follows.
n the recipients' systems. That
>fails the criterion of plain text legibility.
Of course. But that does not make tagged text a minefield - in the
absence of your nice Phoenician font Hebrew would show up instead -
precisely what is used by and large by Semiticists right now.
>> The
Dean Snyder wrote:
This is ALL I am trying to do here - just presenting some perspectives
that may not be apparent to non-specialists, in the hopes it will make
for a better informed decision.
Good enough. But didn't we also hear from some specialists who say they
*do* need the disunificatio
Dean Snyder a écrit :
Of course. But that does not make tagged text a minefield - in the
absence of your nice Phoenician font Hebrew would show up instead -
precisely what is used by and large by Semiticists right now.
[PA] I also got this feedback from Lionel Galand (of Tifinagh and Libyan
Patrick Andries wrote at 9:52 AM on Friday, May 7, 2004:
>Dean Snyder a écrit :
>
>>Of course. But that does not make tagged text a minefield - in the
>>absence of your nice Phoenician font Hebrew would show up instead -
>>precisely what is used by and large by Semitici
Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 9:42 AM on Friday, May 7, 2004:
>Dean Snyder wrote:
>
>>We need EXPLICIT reasons to justify a new encoding. Just saying
>>that somebody wants it in XML because their font won't show up is
>>insufficient justification, especially when the repercussions in the
>>scholarly c
Please may we have a translation into English.
Jony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Andries
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 3:53 PM
> To: Dean Snyder
> Cc: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: Phoenician
>
in the
> absence of your nice Phoenician font Hebrew would show up instead -
> precisely what is used by and large by Semiticists right now.
But precisely what other users do *not* want to show up. Again, you can
encode using Hebrew characters, and get fallback functionality that you
like. But if that
> >[PA] I also got this feedback from Lionel Galand (of Tifinagh and Libyan
> >fame) about Punic : «Je peux vous dire que j'ai souvent travaillé sur
> >des répertoires de documents puniques qui étaient publiés en caractères
> >hébraïques. »
>
> This could be multiplied a hundredfold.
The same co
> Having said that, I do not recall anyone, still promoting this
proposal,
> having addressed some of the more serious specific objections I, and
> others, have raised. For example, even in this email response of
yours,
> you did not address the one specific issue I raised concerning
competing
> en
e; we just disagree on this issue.
You've responded to us, not them. At this point, Unicode, the
"non-experts," have some experts saying "we need Phoenician" and some
experts saying "no we don't." If this is to be resolved, the experts
need to fight it out
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
> See posts by Deborah Anderson and Paul James Cowie.
> Is that enough? Or
> are they not expert enough or something?
Let's say there are 400 epigraphers in the world.
How many votes does one need to get a genuine sense of
community opinion?
I don
> [PA] True. Just stating it is a common practice. People will not be
> unsettled by a plain text unification.
*Some* people. We've already heard from some who will be unsettled.
Peter Constable
Peter Constable a écrit :
[PA] I also got this feedback from Lionel Galand (of Tifinagh and Libyan
fame) about Punic : «Je peux vous dire que j'ai souvent travaillé sur
des répertoires de documents puniques qui étaient publiés en caractères
hébraïques. »
This could be multiplied a hundredf
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Obviously one can find experts on both sides of this debate.
Experts that need something should not be told "You can't have it
because we have other experts who don't like it."
Indeed not, but they might actually want to be told 'Other experts have raised these
specific
John Hudson wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Obviously one can find experts on both sides of this debate.
Experts that need something should not be told "You can't have it
because we have other experts who don't like it."
Indeed not, but they might actually want to be told 'Other experts
have
On 07/05/2004 08:40, Jony Rosenne wrote:
Please may we have a translation into English.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Andries
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 3:53 PM
To: Dean Snyder
Cc: Unicode List
Subject: Re: Phoenician
Of Mark E. Shoulson
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 5:12 PM
> To: Dean Snyder
> Cc: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: Phoenician
>
>
> Dean Snyder wrote:
>
> >Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 9:42 AM on Friday, May 7, 2004:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Dean Snyder wr
iculties are significant.
This could be solved by making Phoenician and Hebrew base characters equivalent
at the first level of collation.
--
At the end of the Metatarsal Age, the dinosaurs John Cowan
abruptly vanished. The theory that a single [EMAIL PROTECTED]
catastrophic event m
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
> This could be solved by making Phoenician and Hebrew
> base characters equivalent
> at the first level of collation.
Could this be translated and expanded into Basic
Not-so-Geeky English???
E. Keown scripsit:
> > This could be solved by making Phoenician and Hebrew
> > base characters equivalent
> > at the first level of collation.
>
> Could this be translated and expanded into Basic
> Not-so-Geeky English???---Elaine
It means that given an alphabet
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Dear John Cowan:
> Instead, the alefs will sort together, the bets will
> sort together, and so on.
> Only if two words are identical in everything but
> script will the Square
> come first and the P. second (or the other way
> about, depending on how
> the d
> > This could be solved by making Phoenician and Hebrew
> > base characters equivalent
> > at the first level of collation.
>
> Could this be translated and expanded into Basic
> Not-so-Geeky English???---Elaine
The Phoenician and Hebrew base characters would have
E. Keown scripsit:
> So could you do this with all Semitic/Afroasiatic languages which have
> something like alef and beth? Is there a numeric limit?
No, there's no numerical limit. You could do it for whichever 22CWSAs
Unicode ends up encoding. Another consequence is that searching as well
as
At 17:10 -0400 2004-05-07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would only be the *default* rules. Unicode-savvy sort programs can
accept "tailorings" that make the rules different, like the Swedish tailoring
that makes a-ring, a-umlaut, and o-umlaut sort after z instead of in their
default places with
Oh, this is ridiculous. "They're the same script." It's shown they're
not. "Scholars don't want it." It's shown they do. "Then ask more
scholars." That way lieth madness; you can always say the *next* people
we talk to will *really* put us in our place... There's always some
further prob
tailoring, but it would in principle
be possible to interfile Egyptian, Phoenician, Hebrew, Arabic, and
Syriac text. Whether such an ordered list would be useful (in terms
of actually being able to read the list) is another question entirely.
On an earlier version of the Mac OS there was a
convinced the possible difficulties are significant.
This could be solved by making Phoenician and Hebrew base characters
equivalent
at the first level of collation.
Not in the default template; we don't mix scripts. But Semiticists
who wanted to mix the two could tailor the ordering, of c
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Oh, this is ridiculous. "They're the same script." It's shown
they're not.
To head off the inevitable dispute: I was speaking "shorthand". What I
mean is, "They're the same script, everyone recognizes them as one
script," and it's shown that modern readers do not cons
Elaine asked:
> Dear John Cowan:
>
> > Instead, the alefs will sort together, the bets will
> > sort together, and so on.
> > Only if two words are identical in everything but
> > script will the Square
> > come first and the P. second (or the other way
> > about, depending on how
> > the default
difficulties are significant.
This could be solved by making Phoenician and Hebrew base characters equivalent
at the first level of collation.
[PA] I suppose this would be true in principle, but how long before this
is implemented in the **actual tools** used by user such as MS Word or
MS
Elaine Keown
Dear Mark:
You seem to have learned a lot from Michael Everson.
Your basic procedure is simply to ignore all
objections and pretend they are stupid.
That's not going to work when we have real feedback.
Elaine
__
From: "E. Keown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jony Rosenne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > This could be solved by making Phoenician and Hebrew
> > base characters equivalent
> > at the first level of collation.
>
> Could thi
y 07 15:56
Subject: Re: Phoenician
> At 15:46 -0400 2004-05-07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Jony Rosenne scripsit:
> >
> >> A possible strong negative argument would be if having it would cause
> >> problems for those who do not think they need it. For example
From: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To make things simpler, introduce a special collation key value which is lower
> than all others, (0 in the example above), and you get a simpler view of
> collation elements as a single vector of numeric value, if you use it as a
> terminator between ea
on 2004-05-07 07:47 Peter Constable wrote:
Have you not heard that yours is not the only scholarly community? To
speak as though there is only one, or that all have the same needs as
yours, seems a bit arrogant.
Sadly, the hegemonist view is not restricted among scholars to these
semeticists; in s
Saturday, May 08, 2004 1:27 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Phoenician
>
>
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
> > Oh, this is ridiculous. "They're the same script." It's shown
> > they're not.
>
> To head off the inevitable disput
Patrick Andries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[on tailored collations]
> [PA] I suppose this would be true in principle, but how long before this
> is implemented in the **actual tools** used by user such as MS Word or
> MS SQL Server ?
> [...] (yes,
> I know with a bit of tailoring ($) other tools
e, that Microsoft won't support it.
[PA] This is true but this may take (some very long ?) time if the
non-availabilibity Khmer or French Canadian sorting is anything to go by.
Again, I'm not opposed to Phoenician in principle (it is intellectually
pleasing and cleaner), I just don&#
s sense to you. You're doing that now. Keep
on doing it.
But if Hellenicists, Indo-Europeanists, and script specialists see
"Phoenician" as the important, proximate source of the Greek writing
system, if they would *not* transliterate it into Hebrew, and if they
would like to
> It appears that I sometimes have difficulty expressing *why* things
> should be encoded. I'm not sure I can do much about that. I think I'm
> a good judge of when to unify and when not to unify nevertheless.
Logically, this is a fairly empty claim. It's sort of:
- I know the difference between
At 10:34 -0700 2004-05-08, Mark Davis wrote:
> It appears that I sometimes have difficulty expressing *why* things
should be encoded. I'm not sure I can do much about that. I think I'm
a good judge of when to unify and when not to unify nevertheless.
Logically, this is a fairly empty claim. It's
Mark Davis scripsit:
> - But I'm good at it, because invariably when I say it's a tree,
> I agree with myself.
Hardly. If the rest of you hadn't agreed with his judgments most of the
time, the Roadmap might look quite different. It's more like Potter
Stewart on pornography.
--
John Cowan www
Elaine Keown wrote,
> You seem to have learned a lot from Michael Everson.
>
> Your basic procedure is simply to ignore all
> objections and pretend they are stupid.
Michael Everson doesn't need to teach anyone to ignore the opposition's
objections and pretend they are stupid. After all, thi
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
I guess this is a flame, right?
but what on earth does it mean?
> Hardly. If the rest of you hadn't agreed with his
> judgments most of the time, the Roadmap might look
> quite different. It's more like Potter
> Stewart on pornography.
Who's Potter Ste
E. Keown scripsit:
> I guess this is a flame, right?
> but what on earth does it mean?
>
> > Hardly. If the rest of you hadn't agreed with his
> > judgments most of the time, the Roadmap might look
> > quite different. It's more like Potter
> > Stewart on pornography.
>
> Who's Potter Stewart
x27;s
"default template" refer to the same item. And
Unicode-compliant software will support DUCET.
John Cowan wrote:
> given an alphabetized list of words, some of which
> are Phoenician (including Palaeo-Hebrew, Punic, the
> whole ball of wax) and some of which are
> Squar
Elaine Keown wrote,
> > Hardly. If the rest of you hadn't agreed with his
> > judgments most of the time, the Roadmap might look
> > quite different. It's more like Potter
> > Stewart on pornography.
>
> Who's Potter Stewart? (I don't own a TV).Elaine
Potter Stewart doesn't get on TV mu
At 12:41 -0700 2004-05-08, E. Keown wrote:
Who's Potter Stewart? (I don't own a TV).Elaine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart
--
ME
> Somewhat echoing Deborah Anderson's contribution from a few days ago,
I
> am categorically against any script unification in this matter and I
> believe that Phoenician script should be encoded separately from
square
> Hebrew script - when I have the need to encode both scripts
Paul James Cowie wrote at 6:44 AM on Thursday, May 6, 2004:
>Somewhat echoing Deborah Anderson's contribution from a few days ago, I
>am categorically against any script unification in this matter and I
>believe that Phoenician script should be encoded separately from square
hat
means a failure wrt being legibly distinct.
That's what I said about setting Yiddish in Phoenician, isn't it?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
On 05/05/2004 22:44, Paul James Cowie wrote:
I've just been reading over the discussion regarding Phoenician script
encoding that has been generated over the last few days.
As an 'expert', i.e. someone actually working with ancient languages,
can I put in a vote for Michael'
uld be mis-interpreted as the wrong thing -- that
means a failure wrt being legibly distinct.
That's what I said about setting Yiddish in Phoenician, isn't it?
And what I said about setting Vietnamese in Suetterlin, isn't it?
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMA
At 10:50 -0700 2004-05-06, Peter Kirk wrote:
Thank you, Paul. I am pleased to hear that some real users are
adding support to the proposal. This is precisely what is needed for
the proposal to be acceptable. I now have almost no remaining
objections to the proposal, only to the way in which it w
he character encoding level, not in markup. I have no
opinion on what or how many the new distinct things should be.
> * Separately encode Phoenician, Old Hebrew, Samaritan, Archaic Greek,
Old
> Aramaic, Official Aramaic, Hatran, Nisan, Armazic, Elymaic, Palmyrene,
> Mandaic, Jewish Aramaic, Nab
Dean Snyder wrote:
The issue is not whether this particular proposal represents Phoenician
"script" adequately, it does; the real issue is whether Phoenician should
be separately encoded at all.
I thought we had pretty much thrashed this one out by now. We've
demonstrated that
Phoenician should be encoded because it has a demonstrable usage,
even if it's slight and mostly paedagogical, and as one of the main
pre-cursors to a lot of other scripts.
That pre-cursor was not Hebrew, which developed later and did not
engender additional scripts.
--
Michael Ev
Hebrew
branch from the Phoenician root is being made along the lines
envisioned in the proposal,
Reasonable glyph analysis based on the work of other script experts,
mostly. "What looks Phoenician?" Informs this pretty much, here, in
N2311, and in most histories of writing. Mark Shou
Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the
Phoenician encoding?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the
Phoenician encoding?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the
Phoenician encoding?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Anyone have any comments about the numbers proposed for the
Phoenician encoding?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
ssifies scripts and seeks to do so in a way that is
useful for text processing. This is well and good. What I have found
problematic in your defence of the Phoenician proposal, Michael, is
your assumption that the classification of script used in histories
of writing systems naturally cor
wrote:
>
> >Hello Shemayah,
> >
> >Thank you very much for your fast response!
> >
> >Yes, you are right, I had mis-read the original post to the Unicode list
> >and was mistaken about your font using the Unicode Hebrew range. Now
> >that I'v
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of James Kass
> Based on an off-list discussion of yesterday's post from Shemayah
> Phillips of ebionite.org, it was felt that my original post did
> not ask the right question...
So if I understand correctly, the only fonts that we
Peter Constable scripsit:
> So if I understand correctly, the only fonts that we know of so far that
> have PH glyphs encoded in the 0590..05FF block were developed by someone
> who thinks PH should be encoded as a distinct script from square Hebrew.
Principle is one thing, expediency another. E
historical, pre-alphabet model borrowed and
extended by the Greeks.
>The discussion on the Unicode list concerning Phoenician has been
>*very* lively. It's had the most "bandwidth" and contention of any
>topic in the several years that I've been a subscriber.
>T
ss characterization of your position
was over-stated, I would conclude that either you:
A. Do *not* believe that there is no established *need*..., or
B. Believe that there *is* an established *need* ...
If A, then you don't have a position, and should back off the
argument. If B, then y
should back off the
>argument.
I don't see why.
>If B, then you should be supporting James' and Michael's
>position for encoding Phoenician as a distinct script.
>
>Your clarification amounts to an assertion that a "desire by some"
>does not amount to a
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
Jony Rosennewrote:
> Please may we have a translation into English.
Approximate English:
'I can tell you that I have often worked with
collections of Punic documents which were printed in
Hebrew characters.'
> >Lionel Galand
> > «Je peux vous dire que
Elaine Keown --- Tucson, Arizona
Hi,
Peter Kirk wrote:
>The question is, is it a >separate script, or is it a set of variant glyphs for what should be a >unified 22 character Semitic script (although currently known as >Hebrew)? This question of unification or disunification needs to be
1 - 100 of 690 matches
Mail list logo
