Michael Everson scripsit: > You can buy books to teach you how to learn S�tterlin. Germans who > don't read S�tterlin recognize it as what it is -- a hard-to-read way > that everyone used to write German not so long ago.
Sure. At some point, the same was true of Palaeo-Hebrew and Square Hebrew, no doubt. Jews returning from Babylonian exile with their nifty new Aramaic-style glyphs probably saw PH inscriptions around them here and there. > Phoenician script, on the other hand, is so different that its use > renders a ritual scroll unclean. Everson Monotype Hebrew glyphs would render it unclean as well. > What? No chance. On Mac OS for instance, if the font didn't have glyphs, > they would be substituted from a Hebrew font which did or with the > Last Resort Font. And if the font contained explicit glyphs of zero width, what then? > If you unify PHOENICIAN QOP with HEBREW KOP (because, according to you, > Phoenician is just a font variant of Hebrew) it will be reasonable > for people to expect the right Hebrew behaviours, such as display. Within the scope of the subset actually required for Phoenician, certainly. I wouldn't expect a Trajan's Column font to have glyphs -- still less reference glyphs, with their totally inappropriate style -- for thorn, for example. > Either way, pointed and cantillated text displayed in a Phoenician > font is a JOKE at best. Probably. So is Q with dagesh, though it's equally legal Unicode. Why be so concerned about a borderline case? People who encode Phoenician, whether they use the Hebrew codepoints or not, are not likely to litter it with unhistorical points and cantillations. -- If you understand, John Cowan things are just as they are; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan if you do not understand, http://www.reutershealth.com things are just as they are. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
