Dean Snyder parried (and missed): > James Kass wrote at 4:37 PM on Wednesday, May 26, 2004: > >Shemayah Phillips of ebionite.org > >>It has some > >>differences in representing Hebrew because square script has more > >>characters (e.g., shin/sin) than Palaeo. > > Not a relevant argument - Spanish has more characters than English.
Not a relevant observation. The Spanish *alphabet* has more *letters* than the English *alphabet*. But the Unicode Standard does not encode alphabets of the same script distinctly -- it encodes scripts distinctly. > >The opposition believes that > >there is no established *need* to be able to represent/display both > >modern Hebrew and palaeo-Hebrew in the same plain text document. > > The last point is over-stated, and leaves out any counter-arguments. > > I think all acknowledge a demonstrated desire by some to distinguish the > two in plain text, but I and others have suggested that that desire > should be weighed against the added complexity for text processing that a > new encoding will introduce. This is mincing words. If you think that Jame's Kass characterization of your position was over-stated, I would conclude that either you: A. Do *not* believe that there is no established *need*..., or B. Believe that there *is* an established *need* ... If A, then you don't have a position, and should back off the argument. If B, then you should be supporting James' and Michael's position for encoding Phoenician as a distinct script. Your clarification amounts to an assertion that a "desire by some" does not amount to a "need" to encode in plain text. It's like Daddy responding to the kid who says, "I need a lollipop!", "No, you don't *need* a lollipop, you just *want* a lollipop." And then following up with, "Lollipops are expensive. Those of us who don't need lollipops don't want to have to pay for your lollipop, so you can't have one." Character encoders recognize that there are often tradeoffs in the difficulty of implementing certain kinds of text processes, depending on character encoding decisions taken. But I'm not seeing here a serious assessment of the tradeoffs in this case or a countering of the arguments presented by the pro-Phoenician camp that the asserted difficulties are not actually all that difficult. Instead, I see repeated assertions that those who *want* to encode Phoenician as a script haven't demonstrated a *need* to encode Phoenician. If you cannot convince the "wanters" that they don't actually "need" what they "want", then they will simply continue to assert that they do "need" what they "want" and will continue to throw tantrums when Daddy tells them they can't have a lollipop. > >Those supporting the Phoenician encoding consider that Phoenician > >has a separate script identity from modern Hebrew and requires > >a separate Unicode range. > > Leaving out the very important issue of ANCIENT Jewish Hebrew which IS > encoded in Unicode Hebrew. Is *NOT*. Ancient Jewish Hebrew texts can be *represented* in plain text using the Unicode encoded characters for Modern Hebrew square script. Your shortcuts here are continually running afoul of categorial errors. The Unicode Standard does not *encode* texts. It does not *encode* languages. It does not *encode* alphabets. It distinguishes some collection of scripts, and encodes the characters for each script it distinguishes. The characters so encoded can then be used (in plain text, or in conjunction with markup or other mechanisms of rich text) to *represent* textual content. Palaeo-Hebrew texts can be *represented* in plain text using the Unicode encoded characters for Modern Hebrew square script. Palaeo-Hebrew texts can be *represented* in plain text using the Unicode encoded characters for the Latin script. The latter case is a clear instance of *transliteration*, as nobody in his right mind asserts that Palaeo-Hebrew and Latin constitute the *same* script. The relevant question is for the former case: does that involve transliteration between scripts or not? And the answer depends on whether the Old Canaanite script is or is not separately encoded in the Unicode Standard. But whether or not the Old Canaanite script is separately encoded, it *remains* true that: Palaeo-Hebrew texts can be *represented* in plain text using the Unicode encoded characters for Modern Hebrew square script. > At a bare minimum, Unicode Hebrew encodes both modern Israeli Hebrew > script and ancient Jewish Hebrew script. At a bare minimum, it does *not*. It encodes a *single* Hebrew square script, which can be used to *represent* modern Israeli Hebrew texts or ancient Biblical Jewish Hebrew texts (or modern or medieval Yiddish texts, for that matter, as well as Judaeo-Arabic, etc., etc.). > One of the main issues under > discussion is whether it should also encode Palaeo-Hebrew script. No, again. The issue under discussion is whether the Unicode Standard should encode the Phoenician script (considered here to be synonymous with Old Canaanite and understood to be intended to cover various related forms including Punic, Moabite, etc.). If it is separately encoded, then clearly Palaeo-Hebrew texts *can* be represented using the characters encoded for the Phoenician script. But it will also remain true that: Palaeo-Hebrew texts can be *represented* in plain text using the Unicode encoded characters for Modern Hebrew square script. The argument then devolves to a determination whether this resulting situation will cause lasting damage to Semitic studies and Semitic scholars. One side claims yes. One side claims no. --Ken
