On 30/04/2004 00:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dean Snyder wrote,
1) The script is wrongly called "Phoenician" - the same script was used
for Old Phoenician, Old Aramaic, Old Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and
Edomite. That is why I propose it be named "[Old] Canaanite".
The Latin script is used for English, German, Tahitian, Apache, etc..
But it remains the Latin script. Likewise, Phoenician is Phoenician,
even if other users borrowed it.
This is based on a historically unproven assumption that this script originated with the Phoenicians. I don't think it's even true that the oldest surviving texts in this script are Phoenician.
Yes, but writing "Trotsky" and then displaying this word with a font using Cyrillic glyphs at Latin code points would be a mistake....
Peter Kirk wrote,
Not really. Acceptance of the proposal would create an expectation that Phoenician texts should be encoded with the new Phoenician characters, and so that existing practices are wrong and should be changed.
Not necessarily. The existence of a Cyrillic range doesn't preclude Latin script users from writing "Trotsky".
...
If there is such a small minority, let us hear from them. As far as I know this is a minority of one.
Please. When the Phoenician script is approved, I will post a hypertext
version of the Meshe Stele. ( http://home.att.net/~jameskass/phoeniciantest.htm )
The Mesha Stele (otherwise known as the Moabite Stone) is already available in Hebrew script. What is the need for a separate encoding of the same text?
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
