Well, it seems to me that in the case of the Aramaic proposal we don't even have that. We have an archaic version of the script which is now used mainly for Hebrew, and which many scholars still call Aramaic (in distinction from paleo-Hebrew) although Unicode calls it Hebrew. The Aramaic glyphs are almost all recognisably the same as or slight variants on the Hebrew ones. And Hebrew script is already used, uncontroversially, for large corpora of Aramaic e.g. in the Talmud. Why a new script for the few surviving examples of ancient Aramaic in this script?
People. It's the widespread offshoot used throughout the Middle East that spawned Brahmic and Uighur and other scripts. It isn't necessarily the thing you think is confined to three scraps of papyrus or whatever. We aren't working actively on this now. We don't have an active proposal. We have something roadmapped, and I for one don't want to spend time right now defending its roadmapping to you apart from what is in my earlier paper on Semitic scripts. Could you turn off the fire alarms?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
