Michael Everson wrote at 1:38 PM on Saturday, December 27, 2003: >At 00:36 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote: > >>This document by Michael Everson is particularly revealing and in the end >>damning to his whole attempt at disunification of the Northwest Semitic >>script. > >I am not interested in participating in this kind of discourse. This >is not "Michael Everson vs the Semitic scholars", Mr Snyder.
I only mentioned your name because the person who posted this reference quoted it as an authority apropos to this discussion but did not give your, the author's, name; and yet it is YOUR opinions about disunification of the ancient Northwest Semitic script which have come under scrutiny here. Therefore your authorship of that document is material information in this discussion. Aside from that, there still remain the substantive questions I raised about the actual content of your document. >Your "Northwest Semitic" is the same as "my" Phoenician in any case; >so, in fact, you agree with the Roadmap as regards some points. Not if you exclude Samaritan, Aramaic, and Square Hebrew, which you have. >Lumpers can use Hebrew. Splitters need more granularity. We will, >eventually, be investigating the levels of granularity that will be >useful. But my main objection is that you have ALREADY made up your mind about Phoenician and Hebrew, categorically and emphatically declaring that there is "zero chance" that they will be considered glyphic variants of one another. -------------------------------- Terminology has become an issue. I think words like "Phoenician" and "Hebrew" are being used in differing ways. Phoenician is a language, a group of script variants within a broader script system used for writing the Phoenician language, and (for some) a whole script system. (See, for example, the confusion in the O'Connor taxonomic chart included in your roadmap document, where he places Phoenician under Phoenician!). Similarly, Hebrew is a language, a group of script variants used for writing the Hebrew language, and an encoded script in Unicode. (I know that "Phoenician" and "Hebrew" are used for writing other languages, in fact that's my whole point - this is a single script system used for writing different languages, and the distinctions that exist are primarily linguistic and/or cultural and are not script related.) I use Phoenician as the name for a group of script variants in the broader Northwest Semitic script system used for writing the Phoenician language; and I use Hebrew for a group of related script variants, both ancient and modern, used for writing the Hebrew language. Because Hebrew has a longer and more varied history than Phoenician, when I want to make distinctions in the Hebrew group I say Old or Ancient Hebrew versus Medieval & Modern, or Square, Hebrew. Respectfully, Dean A. Snyder Scholarly Technology Specialist Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St. Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218 office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229 Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi
