On 30/04/2004 06:45, Philippe Verdy wrote:
This argument doesn't work. In books in (for example) English discussing foreign languages, including those written in Latin script, example words in foreign languages are often set in an italic font. This font distinction carries semantic distinctions in just the same way, and relates to distinct languages....
Suppose that a modern Hebrew text is speaking about Phoenician words, the script distinction is not only a matter of style but carries semantic distinctions as well, as they are distinct languages. It's obvious that a modern Hebrew reader will not be able to decipher a Phoenician word, and even understand it if it is transliterated to the Hebrew script.
Do modern Hebrew texts actually use Phoenician script to quote Phoenician words? I would be surprised if they do this consistently, although some might. Or is this example actually baseless?
Anyway, Phoenician and Hebrew are barely distinct languages, they are extremely similar. A modern Hebrew reader could probably make sense of a large part of a Phoenician inscription transliterated into Hebrew.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
