Ernest Cline wrote:
Is this controversy over Paleo-Hebrew occurring in any context other than the tetragrammaton?
Yes. Use of this style of lettering for the Tetragrammaton is a very late development and, despite its importance in the argument that a plain text distinction needs to be made between Hebrew and Phoenician, it is really irrelevant to what I am talking about.
What I'm referring to is the body of inscriptional and numismatic text from a period of c. 700-800 years in which the Hebrew language is written in the common North Semitic script that is covered in Michael's proposal. The point is that this is all Hebrew language text, easily encodable with existing Hebrew characters, and semiticists have a practical interest in not making a distinction in the corpus of Hebrew text based on the style of lettering used. This is why -- despite supporting the encoding of the ancient North Semitic script, and thinking that Michael's proposal is really good -- I think this question deserves to be addressed with something other than arrogance and defensiveness. Michael seems to be taking it personally -- as if questioning the proposal implies questioning his credentials or knowledge --, but all I'm personally questioning is the one sentence in which he says the new Phoenician characters should be used used for Palaeo-Hebrew. I'm not sure that this is the best recommendation to make to the people who actually work with Palaeo-Hebrew.
John Hudson
--
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I often play against man, God says, but it is he who wants
to lose, the idiot, and it is I who want him to win.
And I succeed sometimes
In making him win.
- Charles Peguy
