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. We
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
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
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
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 both?
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
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 about
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
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
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.
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
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 already. In
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 or
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
John Jenkins jenkins at apple dot com 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...
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 put me on
From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patrick Andries Patrick dot Andries at xcential dot com wrote:
Try with Stterlin 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,
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
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: Monday, May
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 no because
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
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 2:45 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
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
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 are not unified
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
Romance languages.
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
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, even if
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 street use
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 remember any technical
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
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
On 22/05/2004 16:49, James Kass wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote,
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 Unicode Hebrew characters, and fonts with
Phoenician glyphs at the
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, something we will have to deal with.
And
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 22/05/2004 19:41, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
The fear is rather that a few people, who are not true Semitic
scholars, will embrace the new range, and by doing so will make
things much harder for the majority who don't need and don't want
the new encoding. One
Philippe Verdy wrote at 7:54 PM on Sunday, May 23, 2004:
What is unique in Phoenician is that it has a weak
directionality (can be written in either direction, although RTL is probably
more common and corresponds to the most important sources of usage in old
sacred
texts from which semitic script
Curtis Clark wrote at 9:02 PM on Saturday, May 22, 2004:
It's hard for me to believe that the world community of Semitic scholars
is so small or monolithic that there aren't differences of opinion among
them. I have been almost automatically suspicious of the posts by the
Semiticists opposed
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 font change.
I would like
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 *
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,
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 Unicode
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
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
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
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
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 the
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
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 variant of
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
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
UTC
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 chevalier,
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/
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
Mark E. Shoulson mark at kli dot org 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
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?
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 fair
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
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
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
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,
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 in
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
Doug Ewell a crit :
And when shown the Stterlin, he couldn't read it but
certainly recognized it as handwriting.
So would he when submitted with a Cyrillic handwriting ?
P. A.
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
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
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. But,
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
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
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
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
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 a
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
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
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
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 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 in
- 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. I
[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 scripts,
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
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
[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
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
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
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,
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?
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
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
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 Hebrews
had
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
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
Patrick Andries Patrick dot Andries at xcential dot com 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
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
Peter Kirk wrote:
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 Unicode Hebrew characters, and fonts with
Phoenician glyphs at the Hebrew character code points. In other
At 22:41 -0400 2004-05-22, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Non-scholars get to use Unicode too, and have a right to influence
what gets in it. Just because the userbase isn't the people you
thought it would be doesn't mean they don't count.
Amen.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *
At 06:02 +0200 2004-05-23, Jony Rosenne wrote:
Since there are 22 letters with similar meanings and similar names, there is
not much difference between transliteration and encoding in practice.
Except legibility.
I don't think the history of writing systems is going to help us here. There
is no
Elaine, it would be interesting to read Prof. Kaufman's opinion of why
Phoenician should not be regarded as a distinct script (family). Can he be
persuaded to publish his reasoning for UTC to consider?
However despite the discussion of current techniques and preferences among
scholars, the ONLY
From: saqqara [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Unicode, implementation of Phoenician as a font switch for Hebrew as an
alternative proposal fails at the first hurdle if, as is claimed by some
here, modern Hebrew readers do not regard Phoenician fonts as valid Hebrew
fonts (in the sense that an
Dean Snyder dean dot snyder at jhu dot edu wrote:
Since you are the one trying to draw an analogy between Phoenician
and Fraktur, in terms of demand for separate encoding, I think the
burden is on you to prove that such a demand exists for Fraktur.
Otherwise the analogy is pointless.
I've
I absolutely DO disagree with the premise that lots of people would use
a separate Fraktur encoding.
I would use it when transcribing works that mix Fraktur and
Latin constantly, or when there's only a quote or a couple letters in Fraktur.
Sure a lot of people would transcribe their texts
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Dean Snyder
I have brought
up a multitude of different arguments over the past few weeks against
this proposal.
I certainly don't recall a multitude of different arguments from you,
though perhaps I've gotten tired of hearing
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
