At 08:53 -0700 2004-05-01, Peter Kirk wrote:
Is Fraser a separate script, or just an oddball application of Latin caps for which we need a few new ones?
It is a separate script.
In your opinion. Or have you consulted with experts on this one, as you failed to do on Phoenician?
Mr Kirk, while you seem to enjoy baiting me and going out of your way to find my "feet of clay", I didn't "fail" to do any such thing. I shall take this up on another message on this thread. In the meantime, please be advised that if you persist in this kind of discourse with me I shall be perfectly content to add you to my ignore list and say "adieu". You are welcome to consider me an arrogant bastard if you wish, but I am more interested in the work of encoding all of the scripts of the world in the Universal Character Set than in fending off pot-shots about my expertise or whether my opinion "counts".
If so, you might be able to cite a body of opinion that it is a separate script.
I have already done so. In the whole history of the study of writing, no scholar has ever suggested that Phoenician is a variant of the Hebrew script.
There are clearly some opinions that it is not.
I think the arguments for this "unification" on this list have been rather facile, willfully ignorant of the counter-arguments given regarding script genesis and legibility, and generally untenable.
That is my opinion as an expert on writing systems.
Unless, of course, it is because I am not employed by a University as an expert that you don't consider me "qualified" to give an expert opinion -- in which case I should like to point you to the bibliography of documents I have authored over the past decade.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
