Michael Everson wrote:
The numerous and visually varied 22-letter semitic writing systems all represent the same 22 abstract characters.
The Unicode Standard encodes abstract characters.
Ergo, only one set of codepoints is required to encode the 22-letter semitic writing systems.
Oh, goody. Back to square 1.
To clarify: I was not positing this syllogism as a new argument, only seeking to express as succinctly as possible the underlying logic of the opposition to the Phoenician proposal. I don't think this logic is at all unreasonable, any more than I think many of the arguments in favour of the proposal are unreasonable. This is why I don't think any decision can be made on the basis of argument about the identity of 'scripts': there are good arguments for and against different ways of encoding ancient Canaanite writing systems. Yes, I think most of this debate has been a waste of time, but not because either side is obviously right and the other wrong.
As stated previously, the only useful question to ask -- and the only sensible target for those opposed to the proposal -- is whether there is really a 'need' for plain-text distinction of 'Phoenician' from Hebrew and, presumably, from some other forms of ancient Near Eastern writing. Patrick has, today, noted the existence of an inscription that includes both Punic and Neo-Punic forms: is this a distinction that someone might have a 'need' to make in plain-text?
John Hudson
--
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Currently reading: Typespaces, by Peter Burnhill White Mughals, by William Dalrymple Hebrew manuscripts of the Middle Ages, by Colette Sirat
