Michael Everson scripsit:
I remain convinced, however, that suggestion that Phoenician be unified with Hebrew and Phoenician is ridiculous in the extreme, and I will oppose it absolutely. Likewise, it is clear that Samaritan is also not to be unified with Hebrew.
There's clearly a slip here: the second occurrence of "Phoenician" must mean something else, and I can't figure out what. However, it is not so clear to me that Phoenician and palaeo-Hebrew (and a fortiori Samaritan) should not be unified.
Sorry.
I remain convinced, however, that suggestion that Phoenician be unified with Hebrew is ridiculous in the extreme, and I will oppose it absolutely. Likewise, it is clear that Samaritan is also not to be unified with Hebrew.
Currently we do think that Phoenican and Palaeo-Hebrew should be unified. Samaritan on the other hand is a later development of that line, which had to good fortune of taking on typographic regularization and development; it has interesting and unique features with regard to vowel representation, and a modern community of users; it is best disunified from Phoenician.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
