Peter Kirk wrote:
On 06/06/2004 14:38, Patrick Durusau wrote:
In other words, if you ask a Semitic scholar a question about
representation of Phoenician, you are most likely getting an answer
based on a criteria other than the character/glyph model of the
Unicode standard.
That in no way makes
On 07/06/2004 10:48, Asmus Freytag wrote:
At 03:44 AM 6/7/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 06/06/2004 14:38, Patrick Durusau wrote:
The reason I pointed out that Semitic scholars had reached their
view long prior to Unicode was to point out that they were not
following the character/glyph model of the
At 03:44 AM 6/7/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 06/06/2004 14:38, Patrick Durusau wrote:
The reason I pointed out that Semitic scholars had reached their view
long prior to Unicode was to point out that they were not following the
character/glyph model of the Unicode standard.
I don't claim that they
Peter,
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 06/06/2004 14:38, Patrick Durusau wrote:
...
I do not mean to imply that the current proposer has not noted "the
distinction between the terms character and glyph as defined in this
standard." Dr Kaufman is wrong in suggesting that he does not understand
glyphs or Un
On 06/06/2004 14:38, Patrick Durusau wrote:
...
The reason I pointed out that Semitic scholars had reached their view
long prior to Unicode was to point out that they were not following
the character/glyph model of the Unicode standard.
I don't claim that they are following the Unicode model. Bu
Peter,
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 05/06/2004 08:25, John Hudson wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
All Hudson is pointing out is that long PRIOR to Unicode, Semitic
scholars reached the conclusion all Semitic languages share the same
22 characters. A long standing and quite useful conclusion that has
nothing at
On 05/06/2004 08:25, John Hudson wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
All Hudson is pointing out is that long PRIOR to Unicode, Semitic
scholars reached the conclusion all Semitic languages share the same
22 characters. A long standing and quite useful conclusion that has
nothing at all to do with your prop
Peter Kirk wrote:
All Hudson is pointing out is that long PRIOR to Unicode, Semitic
scholars reached the conclusion all Semitic languages share the same
22 characters. A long standing and quite useful conclusion that has
nothing at all to do with your proposal.
But I dispute his last sentence.
On 04/06/2004 18:11, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
...
There ARE cases in which entire
alphabets have been given compatibility decompositions to other
alphabets.
^
The operative word here is alphabets, as should be obvious. These
are not separate scripts. It they *had* been treated as
Peter Kirk wrote:
But I accept that this Coptic to Greek compatibility has a few problems
because not all characters have mappings. However, this is not a problem
for Phoenician, because *every* Phoenician character has an unambiguous
compatibility mapping to an existing Hebrew character.
As I'
Peter,
> There is no consensus that this Phoenician proposal is necessary. I
> and others have also put forward several mediating positions e.g.
> separate encoding with compatibility decompositions
>
> >>>Which was rejected by Ken for good technical reasons.
> >>>
> >>I don't r
On 25/05/2004 12:14, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Peter,
There is no consensus that this Phoenician proposal is necessary. I
and others have also put forward several mediating positions e.g.
separate encoding with compatibility decompositions
Which was rejected by Ken for good technical re
On 02/06/2004 13:48, Christopher Fynn wrote:
...
<>
An analogous statement can be made of any script in Unicode. We can all
continue to use code pages or the myriad Hebrew fonts that put the
glyphs at
Latin-0 code points. If the proposed Phoenician block can be so easily
ignored in encoding anc
Ted Hopp wrote:
Let me rephrase the point as a question:
What in the encoding of 'Phoenician' characters in Unicode
obliges anyone to use those characters for ancient Canaanite
texts?
An analogous statement can be made of any script in Unicode. We can all
continue to use code pages or the myria
Ted Hopp wrote:
On Friday, May 21, 2004 3:01 PM, John Hudson wrote:
Let me rephrase the point as a question:
What in the encoding of 'Phoenician' characters in Unicode
obliges anyone to use those characters for ancient Canaanite
texts?
<>
An analogous statement can be made of any script
On Friday, May 21, 2004 3:01 PM, John Hudson wrote:
> Let me rephrase the point as a question:
>
> What in the encoding of 'Phoenician' characters in Unicode
> obliges anyone to use those characters for ancient Canaanite
> texts?
An analogous statement can be made of any script in Unicode. W
On Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:23 AM, Peter Constable wrote:
> > In fact Jews used both diascripts, Palaeo-Hebrew and Jewish
> > Hebrew, contemporaneously.
>
> Could you please provide more information on this? Is this referring to
> the DSS including both, or did the common man on the street use bot
Peter Constable wrote:
So, the question is whether contemporaneous use within a single
community suggests that they were viewed as the same or distinct. Either
is possible. If they were considered "font" variants, then you might
expect to see different documents using one or the other, or see
diffe
on 2004-05-25 12:06 Dean Snyder wrote:
3) Palaeo-Hebrew scribal redactions to Jewish Hebrew manuscripts
To me, this is a convincing reason to encode palaeo-Hebrew separately:
it would allow such manuscripts to be encoded in plain text.
--
Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jc
On 26/05/2004 13:13, Peter Constable wrote:
...
So, the question is whether contemporaneous use within a single
community suggests that they were viewed as the same or distinct. Either
is possible. If they were considered "font" variants, then you might
expect to see different documents using one o
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Dean Snyder
> >Negative proofs are kind of hard. I've been unable to find
> >anything which states that the ancient Jews considered
> >Phoenician and Hebrew to be the same script. If it were
> >easily found, I'd've found it alrea
James Kass wrote at 11:01 AM on Wednesday, May 26, 2004:
>And then someone else would say that the Fraktur/Roman
>inscription wasn't germane because ...
Or even German ;-)
Respectfully,
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
Computer Science Department
W
James Kass wrote at 7:57 AM on Wednesday, May 26, 2004:
>If palaeo-Hebrew and square Hebrew are the same script, then
>it couldn't be said that the Jews abandoned the palaeo-Hebrew
>script after the exile. Yet, this is what available references say
>did happen. (By available, I mean to me. Add
John Hudson wrote,
> That needn't be an obstacle to the argument going full circle yet again. Hebrew
> and
> Palaeo-Hebrew letters occur side-by-side on some modern Israeli coins also. See
> the
> photography near the bottom of this Typophile discussion:
The bimetallic issue shown in the on
James Kass wrote:
Obviously "Palaeo-Hebrew" is a modern term; the concept is however a very
old one - just look at the Dead Sea scrolls, turn-of-the-era Jewish
coins, etc., where it is employed in an archaizing way.
My pocket change is depressingly modern.
That needn't be an obstacle to the argume
Dean Snyder wrote,
> Modern Hebrew without the adjunct notational systems is Jewish Hebrew and
> DID exist while the Phoenicians were still around in the first few
> centuries BC. In fact Jews used both diascripts, Palaeo-Hebrew and Jewish
> Hebrew, contemporaneously.
Of course, you're right abo
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 25/05/2004 12:14, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
The technical solution for that is:
A. Encode Phoenician as a separate script. (That accomplishes the
second task, of making a plain text distinction possible.)
B. Asserting in the *documentation* that there is a well-known
one-to
On 25/05/2004 12:14, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Peter,
There is no consensus that this Phoenician proposal is necessary. I
and others have also put forward several mediating positions e.g.
separate encoding with compatibility decompositions
Which was rejected by Ken for good technical re
Peter,
> >> There is no consensus that this Phoenician proposal is necessary. I
> >> and others have also put forward several mediating positions e.g.
> >> separate encoding with compatibility decompositions
> >
> >
> > Which was rejected by Ken for good technical reasons.
>
>
> I don't rememb
Peter Constable wrote at 7:23 AM on Tuesday, May 25, 2004:
>Dean Snyder
>> In fact Jews used both diascripts, Palaeo-Hebrew and Jewish
>> Hebrew, contemporaneously.
>
>Could you please provide more information on this? Is this referring to
>the DSS including both, or did the common man on the stre
Michael Everson wrote at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, May 25, 2004:
>It is arguable that Swedish, Bokmål, Nynorsk, and
>Danish are dialects of the same mutually
>intelligible Scandinavian language. Yet they each
>have their own formal orthographies and are, in a
>sense "encoded".
>
>In the same way, ev
You posit that there is a 22-letter Semitic
script and that we should not encode any of its
*diascripts.
You suggest that *diascript is to script as dialect is to language.
It is arguable that Swedish, Bokmål, Nynorsk, and
Danish are dialects of the same mutually
intelligible Scandinavian lang
Michael Everson wrote at 4:01 PM on Tuesday, May 25, 2004:
>At 10:12 -0400 2004-05-25, Dean Snyder wrote:
> Michael Everson
>> >>>In any case we're encoding the significant nodes
>> >>>in your *diascript. Similarly, Swedish, Bokmål,
>> >>>Nynorsk, and Danish are distinguished, as are the
>> >>
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> I disagree, this is not only handwriting: SÃtterlin exists also as a
> regular font. It's just that it uses a cursive (connected) style where
> letters are normally not separated by some blank. But I have seen
> SÃtterlin printed with small blank separation between glyphs,
At 10:12 -0400 2004-05-25, Dean Snyder wrote:
>>>In any case we're encoding the significant nodes
>>>in your *diascript. Similarly, Swedish, Bokmål,
>>>Nynorsk, and Danish are distinguished, as are the
>>>Romance languages.
>>
>>Are you saying that Swedish, Danish, and the
Romance languages a
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Dean Snyder
> In fact Jews used both diascripts, Palaeo-Hebrew and Jewish
> Hebrew, contemporaneously.
Could you please provide more information on this? Is this referring to
the DSS including both, or did the common man on the s
Michael Everson wrote at 2:45 PM on Tuesday, May 25, 2004:
>At 09:06 -0400 2004-05-25, Dean Snyder wrote:
>>Michael Everson wrote at 2:58 PM on Monday, May 24, 2004:
>>
>>>In any case we're encoding the significant nodes
>>>in your *diascript. Similarly, Swedish, Bokmål,
>>>Nynorsk, and Danish are
At 09:06 -0400 2004-05-25, Dean Snyder wrote:
Michael Everson wrote at 2:58 PM on Monday, May 24, 2004:
In any case we're encoding the significant nodes
in your *diascript. Similarly, Swedish, Bokmål,
Nynorsk, and Danish are distinguished, as are the
Romance languages.
Are you saying that Swedish,
Michael Everson wrote at 2:58 PM on Monday, May 24, 2004:
>In any case we're encoding the significant nodes
>in your *diascript. Similarly, Swedish, Bokmål,
>Nynorsk, and Danish are distinguished, as are the
>Romance languages.
Are you saying that Swedish, Danish, and the Romance languages are
James Kass wrote at 5:12 PM on Monday, May 24, 2004:
>Peter Kirk writes,
>> Well, if you asked the ancient Phoenicians this question, of course they
>> would have said "yes" because the script used in their time for Hebrew
>> was very similar to their own script.
>Of course, they'd have said "n
Shemayah Phillips has kindly given permission to forward this
response to a question about Hebrew range palaeo- fonting along
to our public list.
Best regards,
James Kass
- Original Message -
From: "Shemayah Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James Kass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monda
On 24/05/2004 10:19, Michael Everson wrote:
At 08:41 -0700 2004-05-24, Peter Kirk wrote:
But if it had been defined and your small group had started to
publish widely with it, it would have made things more difficult for
those who preferred Klingon in Latin script. For example, they would
have t
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Patrick Andries wrote:
>
> > Try with SÃtterlin also unified within Latin ;-)
>
> That's handwriting, Patrick. Come on, you know better. I can't read my
> doctor's handwriting either, but it's unified with Latin.
I disagree, this is not only handwriting:
"Mark E. Shoulson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, I've wondered about this. I've said it before: if you put my back
> to the wall, I really don't think I could defend the disunification of
> U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A and U+0410 CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER A. But
> that's why they don't pu
John Jenkins wrote:
>> That's handwriting, Patrick. Come on, you know better. I can't read
>> my doctor's handwriting either, but it's unified with Latin.
>
> Are you *sure*? Maybe that's why you can't read it... :-)
Come to think of it, that might explain some things... â
-Doug Ewell
Full
On May 25, 2004, at 11:25 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
That's handwriting, Patrick. Come on, you know better. I can't read
my
doctor's handwriting either, but it's unified with Latin.
Are you *sure*? Maybe that's why you can't read it... :-)
John H. Jenkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Patrick Andries wrote:
>> I showed my 5 year old some Fraktur (lower case only) for the first
>> time today. He is only just getting to grips with reading simple
>> English words. And the verdict .. 'funny and silly' but he could
>> still read the words back to me. Anecdotal perhaps but Dean,
I can't believe we're still arguing this.
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 24/05/2004 05:47, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
...
We've been through this: it isn't about who's the majority. If the
majority wants one thing and there is a significant *minority* that
wants the other, Unicode has to go with the minority
Yeah, I've wondered about this. I've said it before: if you put my back
to the wall, I really don't think I could defend the disunification of
U+0041 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A and U+0410 CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER A. But
that's why they don't put me on the UTC.
~mark
Patrick Andries wrote:
Doug Ewe
From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Everson wrote:
>
> > Why, James, we gave evidence a month ago that the ancient Hebrews
> > considered it to be a different script than the one they had learned in
> > exile.
>
> To be fair, it isn't at all clear from your evidence that the Ancient H
At 15:56 -0400 2004-05-24, Dean Snyder wrote:
Michael Everson wrote at 6:19 PM on Monday, May 24, 2004:
That's why Palaeo-Hebrew and Hebrew are unified.
That's an interesting change of opinion.
It was a typo.
What motivates your current unification of Palaeo-Hebrew and Hebrew?
It was a typo.
On wha
At 12:38 -0700 2004-05-24, John Hudson wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
The numerous and visually varied 22-letter semitic writing
systems all represent the same 22 abstract characters.
The Unicode Standard encodes abstract characters.
Ergo, only one set of codepoints is required to encode the
Michael Everson wrote at 6:19 PM on Monday, May 24, 2004:
>That's why Palaeo-Hebrew and Hebrew are unified.
That's an interesting change of opinion.
What motivates your current unification of Palaeo-Hebrew and Hebrew?
On what basis are you now separating Palaeo-Hebrew from Phoenician?
Respect
Michael Everson wrote:
The numerous and visually varied 22-letter semitic writing
systems all represent the same 22 abstract characters.
The Unicode Standard encodes abstract characters.
Ergo, only one set of codepoints is required to encode the
22-letter semitic writing systems.
Oh, goo
Michael,
Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:22 -0700 2004-05-24, John Hudson wrote:
saqqara wrote:
I'm genuinely interested in why Phoenician should not be regarded as a
separate script but have yet to read a reasoned response to earlier
posts.
I think the view may be most succinctly expressed in this
Oh, well this was already discussed back an forth some ten
days ago - as most of this thread.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If they're lucky. The less lucky will only get default-UCA sorting. The
> least lucky will get nothing but binary codepoint sorting and a few
> language-specific hacks.
Non d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Kass) writes:
> And we use language tagging in plain text how?
I seem to remember the Japanese asking that. And I seem to remember
Unicode encoding the Plane 14 tags for that. And I seem to remember
people saying that if you want language tagging, you shouldn't
be using p
Michael Everson wrote:
We have statements from real Semiticists who do not want their names
dropped into this fray that they support the encoding of Phoenician as a
separate and distinct script from Square Hebrew.
Are these statements going to be registered as documents? It would be nice to know
Michael Everson wrote:
To be fair, it isn't at all clear from your evidence that the Ancient
Hebrews had the same concept of 'script' as the Unicode Standard. I
don't recall anything in what you cited that suggested anything more
significant than a recognition of a change in the style of writing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Kass) writes:
> Guessing's not their job. It's up to a sophisticated search
> engine to find what users seek. Some of us have tried to
> dispel some of these fears by pointing out possible solutions.
The exact same search engine can search among Fraktur and
Roman script
> - for the non-Semiticist interested in PH but not Hebrew, searching for
> PH data in a sea of Hebrew data (if they are unified) is all but
> impossible.
But that's true for every two uses of a script. I can't search for German or
Irish in a sea of English data, or Japanese in a sea of Chinese.
At 14:22 -0400 2004-05-24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
> People who need to override the default template can do so, according
> to the standard.
If they're lucky. The less lucky will only get default-UCA sorting.
I have spoken to representatives of two important vendors i
Michael Everson scripsit:
> People who need to override the default template can do so, according
> to the standard.
If they're lucky. The less lucky will only get default-UCA sorting. The
least lucky will get nothing but binary codepoint sorting and a few
language-specific hacks.
The default
At 10:22 -0700 2004-05-24, John Hudson wrote:
saqqara wrote:
I'm genuinely interested in why Phoenician should not be regarded as a
separate script but have yet to read a reasoned response to earlier posts.
I think the view may be most succinctly expressed in this way:
The numerous and visually v
At 13:37 -0400 2004-05-24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't accept that the existing practices are necessarily a controlling
precedent.
In this case, I do. The default template separates scripts (apart
from the Kana, which are conventionally mixed by everyone who uses
them). There is no reason to
On 24/05/2004 09:00, Christopher Fynn wrote:
...
Even if there is no defined mapping between the two scripts, it won't
be difficult to make one. Interleaved collation can be achieved
creating and using a tailored collation table. There's no rocket
science involved in doing this. Once person h
Michael Everson scripsit:
> >and with interleaved collation,
>
> Which was rejected for the default template (and would go against the
> practices already in place in the default template) but is available
> to you in your tailorings.
I don't accept that the existing practices are necessarily
At 10:18 -0700 2004-05-24, John Hudson wrote:
To be fair, it isn't at all clear from your evidence that the
Ancient Hebrews had the same concept of 'script' as the Unicode
Standard. I don't recall anything in what you cited that suggested
anything more significant than a recognition of a change
James Kass wrote:
Because they want to search documents in the
Hebrew *language* using Hebrew characters in
search strings?
Because they don't want to guess
in what script variant an online corpus is encoded
when doing searches?
Guessing's not their job. It's up to a sophisticated search
eng
saqqara wrote:
I'm genuinely interested in why Phoenician should not be regarded as a
separate script but have yet to read a reasoned response to earlier posts.
I think the view may be most succinctly expressed in this way:
The numerous and visually varied 22-letter semitic writing
systems all
At 08:41 -0700 2004-05-24, Peter Kirk wrote:
But if it had been defined and your small group had started to
publish widely with it, it would have made things more difficult for
those who preferred Klingon in Latin script. For example, they would
have to do double searches of the archives of Klin
The Thread From Hell continues.
Peter Kirk writes,
> >And we get back to the gist. Is it a separate script? Would it be
> >fair to ask for documentation that the ancient Phoenicians who used
> >the script considered it to be a variant of modern Hebrew? (No, it's
> >not a fair question at all
Michael Everson wrote:
Why, James, we gave evidence a month ago that the ancient Hebrews
considered it to be a different script than the one they had learned in
exile.
To be fair, it isn't at all clear from your evidence that the Ancient Hebrews had the same
concept of 'script' as the Unicode St
On 24/05/2004 07:47, Curtis Clark wrote:
on 2004-05-24 06:37 Dean Snyder wrote:
Diascript is to script as dialect is to language - part of a
continuum of
relatively minor variations.
A script is a diascript with an army? (To paraphrase a saying about
dialects...)
And the Phoenicians haven't had
Doug Ewell a Ãcrit :
And when shown the SÃtterlin, he couldn't read it but
certainly recognized it as handwriting.
So would he when submitted with a Cyrillic handwriting ?
P. A.
saqqara a écrit :
I showed my 5 year old some Fraktur (lower case only) for the first time
today. He is only just getting to grips with reading simple English words.
And the verdict .. 'funny and silly' but he could still read the words
back to me. Anecdotal perhaps but Dean, do you want me tes
John Hudson wrote,
> > Also, I'm having trouble understanding why Semitic scholars wouldn't
> > relish the ability to display modern and palaeo-Hebrew side-by-side
> > in the same plain text document.
>
> Because they want to search documents in the
> Hebrew *language* using Hebrew characters
At 08:26 -0700 2004-05-24, John Hudson wrote:
Because they want to search documents in the Hebrew *language* using
Hebrew characters in search strings?
They can do that.
Because they don't want to guess in what script variant an online
corpus is encoded when doing searches?
They have to already,
Peter Kirk wrote:
.
Of course. And the point of Unicode is to move away from this
situation of multiple encodings for the same script, by providing a
single defined encoding for each one and properly defined conversion
paths from legacy encodings.
Yes, for *each* one.
With Unicode, there wi
We have statements from real Semiticists who do not want their names
dropped into this fray that they support the encoding of Phoenician
as a separate and distinct script from Square Hebrew.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
On 24/05/2004 05:47, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
...
We've been through this: it isn't about who's the majority. If the
majority wants one thing and there is a significant *minority* that
wants the other, Unicode has to go with the minority. Otherwise we'd
just all stick with US-ASCII. Unicode is
Michael Everson wrote,
> At 13:09 + 2004-05-24, James Kass wrote:
>
> >And we get back to the gist. Is it a separate script? Would it be
> >fair to ask for documentation that the ancient Phoenicians who used
> >the script considered it to be a variant of modern Hebrew? (No, it's
> >not a
Dean Snyder Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:52 PM
>
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 10:41 PM on Saturday, May 22, 2004:
>
> >And not a single Hebrew-reader I spoke to,
> >native or not, could even conceive of Paleo-Hebrew being a font-variant
> >of Hebrew. They found the proposition laughable.
>
> I'm a
James Kass wrote:
Also, I'm having trouble understanding why Semitic scholars wouldn't
relish the ability to display modern and palaeo-Hebrew side-by-side
in the same plain text document.
Because they want to search documents in the Hebrew *language* using Hebrew characters in
search strings? Be
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> I'm guessing none of your test subjects have read Paleo-Hebrew texts,
>> like the Dead Sea scroll ones. If not, how can they make judgements
>> on this issue? It would be like testing readers of Roman German who
>> had never read Fraktur - they wouldn't recognize it as
I want to start out by saying that, although I personally support
encoding Phoenician, I really have no stake in the outcome one way or
the other, and I'm only participating in the "thread from Hell" (as I
believe James Kass called it) because its dynamics interest me.
on 2004-05-24 03:08 Peter
on 2004-05-24 06:37 Dean Snyder wrote:
Diascript is to script as dialect is to language - part of a continuum of
relatively minor variations.
A script is a diascript with an army? (To paraphrase a saying about
dialects...)
--
Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Mockin
James Kass scripsit:
> Well, I don't think it would be cavalier in any sense to use a
> transliteration font. Hardly antiquarian or throwback, either.
>
> But, I don't for a minute think it's the proper thing to do.
> I think it would be silly and churlish.
I'm more of a ceorl than a chevali
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 5:47 AM
> The fact that there are people who would be
> served by it indicates that Unicode should provide it.
Careful, here: the fact that people would be served by it indicates that
At 13:09 + 2004-05-24, James Kass wrote:
And we get back to the gist. Is it a separate script? Would it be
fair to ask for documentation that the ancient Phoenicians who used
the script considered it to be a variant of modern Hebrew? (No, it's
not a fair question at all. But, I think it's a
Dean Snyder scripsit:
> It would be like testing readers of Roman German who had
> never read Fraktur - they wouldn't recognize it as a font change either
> (which it is, of course, in Unicode).
I see the words "The New York Times" in Fraktur (more or less) every day.
It's obviously a font varian
At 09:37 -0400 2004-05-24, Dean Snyder wrote:
Why would separately encoded Fraktur be troublesome?
Blind as well as deaf, apparently.
It's already encoded. It's already not troublesome.
Diascript is to script as dialect is to language - part of a continuum of
relatively minor variations.
Making up
Peter Kirk also wrote,
> But if there are two competing Unicode
> encodings for the same text, and no defined mappings between them (as
> both compatibility equivalence and interleaved collation seem to have
> been ruled out),
Surely a transliteration table is a mapping in every sense of th
So, so sorry for a recent post.
My ISP annexes original messages in their entirety as the default
condition and doesn't allow users to change the default.
So, if I forget to uncheck the danged box, I end up sending a
17 KB e-mail.
Best regards,
James Kass
Dean Snyder wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 10:41 PM on Saturday, May 22, 2004:
And not a single Hebrew-reader I spoke to,
native or not, could even conceive of Paleo-Hebrew being a font-variant
of Hebrew. They found the proposition laughable.
I'm a Hebrew reader, and I consider it a fo
Doug Ewell wrote at 5:12 PM on Sunday, May 23, 2004:
>I absolutely DO disagree with the premise that lots of people would use
>a separate Fraktur encoding. To my knowledge there has been no request
>for one, and no serious desire on the part of scholars or anyone else to
>encode Fraktur text sepa
Peter Kirk wrote,
(on the use of transliteration fonts)
> OK. And you agree that this is a proper thing to do, and that it should
> not be considered a "cavalierly" and "antiquarian" action, "a throwback
> to the past century"?
Well, I don't think it would be cavalier in any sense to use a
t
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Peter Kirk
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 3:08 AM
> >> As I understand it, what at least a number of Semitic scholars want
> >> to do is not to transliterate, but to represent Phoenician texts
with
> >> Phoenician letters with the U
At 08:45 -0400 2004-05-24, Dean Snyder wrote:
Michael Everson wrote at 12:20 AM on Sunday, May 23, 2004:
FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, Anyone working in the field is going to have
to deal with the corpus being available for searching in LATIN
transliteration ANYWAY.
So, you admit it is a problem, somethi
Peter Kirk.
On 2004-05-12 you recanted and said that you agreed with my
conclusion. I assumed that meant you supported the encoding of
Phoenician.
Perhaps I was wrong. Or perhaps you changed your mind. Grand. Perhaps
you will change it again. Or not.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *
1 - 100 of 220 matches
Mail list logo
