E. Keown wrote:
Chris Fynn wrote:
If you ask Ken & the UTC nicely I should think >a"linguistic relationship" between each letter and >the
corresponding Hebrew letter might be indicated in >the
name list immediately following the code
<>chart (as is done with 0F9D -> 094D). The
Sorry, that should have been 0F84 -> 094D
<>relationship between the letters of the two scripts could probably also be explicitly stated in the block intro for this script (and maybe in the block intro for Hebrew as well). If the one to one correspondence is explicitly stated in the block intro this is a lot more than "throwing in a footnote".
Dear Christopher Fynn: I didn't get this either, beyond one-to-one correspondence (father was mathematician, used such words). Simpler, longer version appreciated.
Thanks, Elaine
Hi Elaine
1) If you look at the list following the table for the 0F00 block (Tibetan) after
0F84 TIBETAN MARK HALANTA you will see
-> 094D devanagri sign virama
which indicates a relationship between these two characters as described at
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch16.pdf#G7080
[Cross References]
I'm simply suggesting that a relationship between Phoenician characters and the
corresponding Hebrew characters could be indicated in the same way
2) Each script also has a "Block Intro" in the Unicode standard . (The block intro
for Hebrew is at Chapter 8.1 of TUS v4 and those for Archaic Scripts are in
Chapter 13). If the block intro for Phoenician contained a clear explanation
of the relationship of that script to Hebrew this would be much better than
Peter's "throwing in a footnote". If necessary something could also be added
to the block intro for Hebrew, which currently contains little about that
scripts development or its relationship to other scripts.
regards
- Chris
