On 02/05/2004 06:33, Michael Everson wrote:
...
If so, you might be able to cite a body of opinion that it is a separate script.
I have already done so. In the whole history of the study of writing, no scholar has ever suggested that Phoenician is a variant of the Hebrew script.
No, but they have suggested and continue to suggest that Phoenician and Hebrew are variants of a common 22-letter Semitic script. On this basis the Hebrew and Phoenician scripts should be unified just as CJK has been unified, and Roman, Italic and Fraktur have been unified. Of course ideally in such a situation the existing Hebrew block should be renamed, although this may be impossible for other reasons.
There are clearly some opinions that it is not.
I think the arguments for this "unification" on this list have been rather facile, willfully ignorant of the counter-arguments given regarding script genesis and legibility, and generally untenable.
Well, the arguments against this "unification" have been non-existent, except for a few ad hominem comments, and the point about legibility which has been amply refuted by the mention of Suetterlin. I don't see the relevance of the script genesis issue, especially as it is in dispute. If there are further counter-arguments, please supply them.
That is my opinion as an expert on writing systems.
Unless, of course, it is because I am not employed by a University as an expert that you don't consider me "qualified" to give an expert opinion -- in which case I should like to point you to the bibliography of documents I have authored over the past decade.
I accept your opinion as that of a single expert. Expert opinions are not the unassailable truth. I have yet to see an expert opinion from a real scholar of Phoenician in support of your proposal. And there have been a number of expert opinions against your proposal.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
