Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, Phoenician, and biblical Hebrew

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 06:32:04 EDT

  • Next message: William Overington: "Re: [Private Use Area] Audio Description, Subtitle, Signing"

    On 15/07/2003 02:58, Michael Everson wrote:

    > ... 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.

    Agreed (though my native script isn't Hebrew either) - excluding of
    course those who have made a special study of these scripts. But then
    the same would be true of black letter (Gothic) script for many English

    But I don't think this would be true of the Palmyrene Aramaic shapes.
    They probably wouldn't appear in a newspaper. But if they were used in a
    modern handwritten letter, I think a Hebrew reader would be able to read
    them reasonably easily though he or she would think they are in strange

    And, to go back to the discussion of a couple of weeks ago, the same is
    even more true of biblical Hebrew. No Hebrew reader would have any
    trouble reading a newspaper in biblical Hebrew script copied direct from
    the classical (Masoretic) biblical MSS. Indeed the Unicode reference
    glyphs are practically identical to the ones in these MSS. So certainly
    no justification for a separate script there.

    Peter Kirk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 07:08:00 EDT