Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, Phoenician

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 05:58:46 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, Phoenician, and biblical Hebrew"

    At 22:16 -0400 2003-07-14, John Cowan wrote:

    >Latn has more letters than Latg does, because it's had to add more;

    I have made thorns and eths in Latg. ;-)

    >Latg is older than the current use of Latn, though not than Latn's

    You're wrong. Latg is older than Latc (Carolingian) but it is not a
    separate script.

    >Some Latg characters are hard to identify if all you know is Latn.
    >But we don't encode them separately.

    Thorn and Wynn and Gha and Ou and Ezh and lots of other Latin letters
    are hard to identify if all you know is Latn. I think your use of
    Latn/Latg here isn't convincing.

    > > And the Samaritan Pentateuch is often printed in the Samaritan script.
    >A font difference would handle that.


    >I'd like someone whose native script is Hebrew to comment on mutual
    >intelligibility, which was the main criterion for separating Glagolitic from

    I don't think it was. Glagolitic and Cyrillic are obviously two
    different scripts. My native script isn't Hebrew but I am certain
    that no one who was could easily read a newspaper article written in
    Phoenician or Samaritan letters.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 06:35:49 EDT