At 14:17 -0700 2004-05-02, John Hudson wrote:
Again, you are missing the point because you are *assuming* that encoding the Mesha Stele with Unicode Hebrew characters = transliteration, i.e. that there is some other encoding that is more proper or even 'true'. The contra-argument is that the 'Phoenician' script is identical to the Hebrew script, the differences in letterforms being merely glyphic variants.
I don't believe that it is possible to claim that the Phoenician script is identical to the Hebrew script. When scripts have identity, it is possible to change fonts and still have people be able to recognize them. We did this when we unified the three Syriac styles. We did it when we disunified Khutsuri from Mkhedruli, and when we disunified Coptic from Greek. Give or take some spelling, it's possible to take an Estrangelo Syriac text, with all its points and dots and things, and change to a different style without appreciable change.
It is not possible to take an encoded Genesis text which is pointed and cantillated, and blithly change the font to Moabite or Punic and expect anyone to even recognize it as Hebrew.
I'm not saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the contra-argument, but don't think you can duck the argument by begging the question.
I think I didn't duck here. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
