> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Everson > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval > > > At 04:27 -0800 2003-12-22, Peter Kirk wrote: >
... > > >Serious consideration should be given to unifying these scripts with > >the Hebrew script, of which they appear to be glyph variants. > > To you. Peter is right and is not alone. I didn't see anyone seconding the other view. > > >The separate status of Phoenician may also need to be reconsidered. > > Absolutely not. Phoenician is the mother of these scripts and Greek > and Old Italic besides. Greek and Old Italic did *not* descend from > "Hebrew", and it is pernicious to go on suggesting that Phoenician > should be unified with Hebrew. If you want, as some scholars do, to > write Phoenician in Hebrew script, go right ahead. That is a > perfectly reasonable transliteration choice. Nothing prevents you > from doing it. But historical realities and relationships *do* have > some relation to the content of the Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC > 10646. And that may include encoding things that you won't use, > though *others* might. > Michael, it's the other way round. Hebrew had been and sometimes still is written in the script you call Phoenician or Palaeo-Hebrew. While it is known that Phoenician did not descend from Hebrew, Hebrew and Phoenician and all other 22 letter scripts in this family are descended from a common source and are glyph variants. ... > -- > Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com > > > Jony
