On 22/12/2003 18:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
Quoting from:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1308&letter=A
<quote>
... In the letter × the original bent stem was curved upward still
more until it reached the upper horizontal stroke, so that the
final Mem to-day has the form ×. The Palmyrene script possesses
a final Nun with a lengthened stem; the Nabatean contains similarly
final Kaph, Nun, áade, and Shin, and further a closed final Mem
and final He. ...
<end quote>
So, apparently we have contextual forms which differ a bit between
scripts. (Hebrew has final KAF, MEM, NUN, PE, and TSADI.)
If Nabataean actually has consistent distinct final shin and final he,
that might be an argument for encoding Nabataean separately. On the
other hand, black letter Latin has not been encoded separately because
it has distinct final and non-final s, special ligatures etc.
***
If ancient Hebrew and modern Hebrew were the same script, we
wouldn't need the modifiers, we could just say "Hebrew" and
everyone would know what we were talking about.
They are the same script. The language is slightly different (like
Shakespearean and modern English) but the script is identical. Or do you
mean palaeo-Hebrew? Don't get confused. Palaeo-Hebrew is known from
inscriptions from before 500 BCE and from some revived use in later
periods, but was not in general use in the "classical" period.
***
The opening line from the Moabite Stone (Mesha Stele) could be
expressed as "ANK MSO BN KMSMLD MLK MAB", but that's not
a compelling argument in favor of unifying PhÅnician and Latin.
Likewise, the fact that some members of the user communities
often transcribe such inscriptions into modern Hebrew is not
a compelling argument in favor of unifying ancient and modern
Hebrew.
A more compelling argument might be that there are no members of the
user communities who do not transcribe these inscriptions.
***
If it's perfectly acceptable to write old Aramaic using modern
Hebrew glyphs, would the converse also be true?
First define "old Aramaic". There is no such script, or at least there
are a large number of different glyph styles. This is like asking if it
would be acceptable to write modern English with glyphs copied from
obscure mediaeval manuscripts. It would be acceptable, but not useful to
anyone. But I do know of one person today who chooses to read the Hebrew
Bible rendered with palaeo-Hebrew glyphs.
In other words, would it be perfectly acceptable to use old Aramaic
glyphs along with cantillation marks and modern Hebrew points to
represent the Bible? Or, would it be a travesty to do so?
Adding points and cantillation marks might be a bit strange, but not
impossible. Again, it depends partly what you mean by "old Aramaic".
...
Referring to the 2311.PDF document, it should be noted that the
phrase "Further research is required" is used twice in the short
section on Aramaic. Michael Everson's submission doesn't strike
me as "by gosh and by golly - this is how we're going to do it",
but rather seems to be a preliminary report offering guidelines
derived from respected sources.
There are such statements in N2311, but they have not been repeated by
Michael in his recent postings which tend to suggest that the matter is
finally decided.
***
Ideally, input would be solicited from members of the user
communities who have read Daniels and Bright (as well as other
germaine publications) and who know something about computer
encoding and the Unicode Standard. (smile) Rara avis.
Agreed! But we must be careful to understand where Daniels and Bright
etc discuss glyph shape differences and where they discuss systematic
differences between scripts.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
