Re: New contribution

[Michael Everson]

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