> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Dean Snyder
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:45 AM
> James Kass wrote at 4:37 PM on Wednesday, May 26, 2004:
> >Shemayah Phillips of ebionite.org
> >>It has some
> >>differences in representing Hebrew because square script has more
> >>characters (e.g., shin/sin) than Palaeo.
>
> Not a relevant argument - Spanish has more characters than English.
Not a relevant analogy - Spanish and English are languages, square and Paleo are "scripts".
> >The discussion on the Unicode list concerning Phoenician has been
> >*very* lively. It's had the most "bandwidth" and contention of any
> >topic in the several years that I've been a subscriber.
>
> >The people opposed to the Phoenician encoding consider that
> >Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew script is identical *from the standpoint
> >of abstract character identity* to the modern Hebrew script range
> >already encoded. Therefore the opposition believes that ancient
> >Phoenician texts should properly be encoded using the existing
> >modern Hebrew script range, and that the display of Phoenician
> >should be handled as a "font change". The opposition believes that
> >there is no established *need* to be able to represent/display both
> >modern Hebrew and palaeo-Hebrew in the same plain text document.
>
> The last point is over-stated, and leaves out any counter-arguments.
But it's accurate.
> I think all acknowledge a demonstrated desire by some to
> distinguish the
> two in plain text, but I and others have suggested that that desire
> should be weighed against the added complexity for text
> processing that a
> new encoding will introduce.
...and you have repeatedly ignored clear evidence that the complexity to which you refer is minimal.
> >Those supporting the Phoenician encoding consider that Phoenician
> >has a separate script identity from modern Hebrew and requires
> >a separate Unicode range.
>
> Leaving out the very important issue of ANCIENT Jewish Hebrew which IS
> encoded in Unicode Hebrew.
What?
> >The supporters say that there *is* a
> >need to be able to represent Phoenician and Hebrew in the same
> >plain text document and that the practice of some scholars to
> >represent Phoenician or palaeo-Hebrew using Unicode's modern
> >Hebrew should be regarded as straight transliteration.
> >...
> >I realize fully that opinions on this subject do differ, and,
> >whether you support one side or the other, your honest
> >opinion as somebody who is working with the ancient script
> >(which either has its own identity -or- is a stylistic variant
> >of the modern Hebrew script) will be most helpful.
>
> Your repeated use of the phrase "modern Hebrew" is
> prejudicing your case
> and calls into question the verdict rendered.
>
> At a bare minimum, Unicode Hebrew encodes both modern Israeli Hebrew
> script and ancient Jewish Hebrew script. One of the main issues under
> discussion is whether it should also encode Palaeo-Hebrew script.
What?
Are we going to have to endure a month of you yammering about "ancient Jewish Hebrew" now? If you've got a point, make it, please.
/|/|ike
