Raymond Mercier wrote: > There are less obvious omissions: > > 1. Kharoshthi, a RtoL script much used in North West India, > and regarded by everyone as a derivative from a form of > the Aramaic script used in that region. ...
And to add to Michael's reply, the historical status of Kharoshthi as a derivative of Aramaic is not at issue here. An extensive proposal for Kharoshthi has been approved by the UTC, encoded at U+10A00..U+10A5F, and has started its way into further rounds of review and ballotting in WG2. If you are concerned about Kharoshthi, the right thing to be doing now is to get involved in the national body review of the Khoroshthi encoding proposal in WG2, rather than battering a suggested summary of "early Semitic scripts" aimed at helping the roadmapping of those scripts for possible future encoding. Note also that a "roadmapping" by Michael is not intended to be a definitive scholarly work about the history of Aramaic or any other script. > > 2. Pahlavi, widely used to write Middle Persian. > This involved a troublesome mixture of Persian reading > of Aramaic words, a subject requiring more elaboration > than is needed here. Also, as Michael indicated, independently roadmapped (for the block at U+0800..U+085F), with a proposal available for review and comment: http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2556.pdf That proposal clearly acknowledges the Aramaic origins of Pahlavi. But again, the useful input here would be to examine and provide feedback on the proposed encoding of Avestan and Pahlavi. --Ken > > > Raymond Mercier >
