On 08/06/2004 06:23, James Kass wrote:
D. Starner wrote,
There's a big difference between Phoenician not being a separate script from those already encoded in Unicode, and it not existing. It certainly exists as a script variant, like Fraktur.
In that sense, treating Phoenician as a script variant of Hebrew is a big win for many of the users of the script, since they would have a hard time deciphering the bizarre (to them) script variant but have no problem reading texts originally written in it in different fonts.
Suppose that the following two sentences are true:
1) Scholars of Semitic *languages* consider Phoenician to be a script variant of modern Hebrew.
2) Scholars of writing systems consider Phoenician to be a distinct script from modern Hebrew.
It is hoped that the UTC will give each viewpoint as much careful consideration as it deserves.
Well, James, suppose rather that the following two sentences are true:
1) Semitic *palaeographers* i.e. scholars of Semitic *writing systems* consider Phoenician to be a script variant of modern Hebrew.
2) Scholars of writing systems *in general* consider Phoenician to be a distinct script from modern Hebrew.
Might that make a difference to the UTC's considerations?
As for which is nearer to the truth, I remind you of John Hudson's words on 21st May:
Having spent much of the past year and a half working with semiticists and Biblical scholars, I've come to the conclusion that they know a heck of a lot more about semitic writing systems than typical Eurocentric writers of generic texts on the history and classification of writing systems. I think the expert comments of semitic scholars should be taken very seriously in considering proposals to encode semitic scripts, including objections to such proposals on grounds of script identity.
So even Semiticists who are more interested in languages than writing systems may well know more about the scripts than do the generalists.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
