On 12/05/2004 03:14, Patrick Andries wrote:
D. Starner a Ãcrit :
"Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
Because each such case has to be judged on its individual merits,
according to proper justification and user requirements. There can be
no hard rules like "always split" or "always join".
Nobody, neither Michael nor anyone else, ever advocates such a rule.
But that's what Patrick implied when he asked how you support the
Hebrew/Phoencian
unification and the Coptic/Greek unification, that such a rule exists.
Well, yes. But more specifically why was the unification ill-advised
for Peter Kirk in the case of Coptic and would not be in the case of
Phoenician. Unless, of course, one justs follows the trend and says
Coptic unification was ill-avised because it has been disunified.
Somehow, I feel I should not have asked since the argument often seems
to be, in the case of neighbouring historical scripts, genealogy and
user community feeling (as interpreted by the proposers).
P. A.
I support Coptic disunification on the grounds that it was requested by
the user community. Initially I opposed Phoenician disunification
because there was no evidence of demand for it from users. As such
evidence has now been produced, I now support Phoenician disunification,
according to Michael Everson's proposal. Please note carefully this last
sentence.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
