Michael Everson scripsit: > Scholarship seems to have proved it, whether or not you believe it.
Well, we have heard about part of the dispute. > It follows therefore (though not if you don't believe it, I suppose) > that unifying Square Hebrew (which we have encoded in Unicode) with > the historical set of Phoenician scripts is an overunification. I don't see how it follows at all. Because Greek derives from Phoenician, unifying Square Hebrew with Phoenician is unjustifiable? How's that? The undistributed (or rather nonexistent) middle term is glaring. > The Phoenician scripts have completely different glyphs, are not > recognized as anything like legible Hebrew. Suetterlin. > No, but in refusing to do so you are ignoring a true analogy. Brahmi > is to Devanagari and Bengali as Phoenician is to Greek and Hebrew. Well, it would be embarrassing to say just which Indic script would be best unified with Brahmi, which *may* be an argument for not unifying it. But Greek doesn't belong in this comparison: it *would* be absurd to unify an alphabet with an abjad, with or without vowel points. > And your view that it's acceptable to > take pointed and cantillated Hebrew text and display it with BOXES > when displaying it with Phoenician glyphs is quite astonishing. That was never my view. You asked me what I thought would be likely to happen in such a case: I replied, in effect: ideally, the marks would disappear (become zero-width glyphs); more likely, they would appear as boxes. That's a claim about what would probably happen, not what should happen. I would make a similar claim if you asked me what would happen if LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Q were followed by dagesh. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the British Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt if the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940
