> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of D. Starner
> Again, no, you can't use archaic forms > of letters in many situations, but that doesn't mean they aren't > unified with the modern forms of letters. On what basis would we consider that the modern form of the characters in question are the square Hebrew reflexes rather than the Greek, Latin, Cyrillic (or whatever else) reflexes? The only bases I can think of on which a connection with square Hebrew could be preferred would be 1) the characters in question have always been most closely associated with the languages that are most closely associated with square Hebrew characters 2) the characters in question are structurally / behaviourally very similar to square Hebrew characters, but not to the characters of other scripts Item 1, I think we'd agree, is just wrong. Item 2 is probably true. But is it enough to refer to square Hebrew as "the modern form" of Phoenician (Old Canaanite, whatever you want to call it)? Peter Constable
