On 04/05/2004 08:58, 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 the other.
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 unification of PH with Samaritan, or of all
three.
Peter Constable
From my point of view, Michael could have made a better case for a
unified Phoenician and Samaritan proposal. But I think he intends a
separate Samaritan proposal. And that I would not oppose, because there
is an easily demonstrable user community of modern Samaritans. Although
I would still want assurances that they don't consider Samaritan script
to be glyph variants of Hebrew script.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
