Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 2:35 PM on Friday, May 21, 2004: >Dean Snyder wrote: > >>Furthermore, this has the advantage of side- >>stepping the whole issue of the origins of the Greek alphabet along with >>its subsequent Mediterranean script descendants, while not mucking up >>Canaanite which is already encoded in Unicode, albeit somewhat >>"prematurely", or "misnamed", as Hebrew. >> >Can we live cosmetic issues like the name out of it? OK, so "Hebrew" is >really "Jewish Aramaic," and it's ironic that we're working on encoding >a Samaritan block distinct from the Hebrew block. Lots of things are >badly named, and bad names sometimes stick. But naming issues like this >(what do we name this block? That name is a bad choice...) are >irrelevant to the discussion. They just make the discussions longer, >but don't affect the validity of anything. If it makes you feel better, >pretend that the blocks are named things like U+05D0, and so are the >letters.
You're missing my point. I don't really care that it's called Hebrew; but I suspect that OTHERS do and that is one motivation (maybe even a subconscious one) behind a separate Phoenician proposal. Respectfully, Dean A. Snyder Assistant Research Scholar Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project Computer Science Department Whiting School of Engineering 218C New Engineering Building 3400 North Charles Street Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218 office: 410 516-6850 cell: 717 817-4897 www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi
