At 10:12 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
OK, if you say so, but then, name names, or at least demonstrate the truth of this statement. According to your proposal, you have not been in contact with any users of the Phoenician script, but I suppose you could still know who they are. But then Deborah Anderson has just stated that she is a user of it, and I know you have had extensive contact with her. I thought of accusing you of lying in the proposal, but it is possible that you were unaware that she is a user. I suggest that your revise your proposal to mention your contact with her, and preferably to summarise her good reasons for supporting your proposal.
I already said that I thought of filling in my own name (as a user of the script) and then thought better of it, thinking to avoid trouble. I didn't go and consult anyone else because Rick and I believed (and still believe) that the proposal was solid and unobjectionable.
My claim was not quite this. It was rather that Phoenician can be treated as subset of Hebrew,
It *can*. But it shouldn't be. It can be treated as a subset of other things too. But it shouldn't be.
and the need to treat it otherwise had not been demonstrated. I think Deborah's contribution has now come close to demonstrating that need.
Debbie quotes Powell, as I did. Everything she says I agree with completely. The need seems to me to be self-evident.
And proved absolutely nothing thereby, because no one has suggested that Phoenician fonts with Latin characters are anything but hacks.
I suggest that Phoenician fonts with Hebrew characters are just as much hacks as Latin ones are. Though I have lots of the latter and have yet to see any of the former.
living users are better than ones long dead.
So much for human history.... -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
