Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, Phoenician

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 10:21:21 EDT

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

    At 09:22 -0400 2003-07-15, John Cowan wrote:
    >Michael Everson scripsit:
    >> >Latg is older than the current use of Latn, though not than Latn's
    >> >ancestor.
    >> You're wrong. Latg is older than Latc (Carolingian) but it is not a
    >> separate script.

    I do. C'mon, John, look at Trajan's Column. Yes, it's legible and the
    wax tablet texts are not, but they are contemporaneous and they are
    certainly the same script.

    >If I don't know Gha, and I see it, I know I don't recognize it: it's a
    >novel letter. (And I may even think it says "OI".)

    (Michael weeps.)

    >If I see a Gaelic-style G and fail to recognize it *as* a G, that's
    >quite different.

    Normally one recognizes it in context. I fail to see your point, however.

    > > > > And the Samaritan Pentateuch is often printed in the Samaritan script.
    > > >
    >> >A font difference would handle that.
    >> Naaaah.
    >Even now that German uses Antiqua almost exclusively, you might find a
    >Lutherbibel printed recently in Fraktur.

    Even so, I don't think there's an advantage to unifying it with
    Hebrew; it is very different. See

    > > I don't think it was. Glagolitic and Cyrillic are obviously two
    > > different scripts.
    >From UTR #3:
    ># In the encoding, Glagolitic is treated as a separate script from
    ># Cyrillic, principally because the letter shapes are in most cases
    ># totally unrelated, with differences not at all arising from "mere
    ># font style".

    That's a draft by Rick McGowan. It indicates that they are obviously
    different scripts.... ;-) Anyway, look at Samaritan Yod and compare
    it with Hebrew Yod. Not mere font style.

    >And from p. 171 (section 7.3) of TUS 3.0:
    ># The Unicode standard regards Glagolitic as a *separate* script from
    ># Cyrillic, not as a font change from Cyrillic. This position is taken
    ># primarily because Glagolitic appears unrecognizably different from
    ># Cyrillic, and secondarily because Glagolitic has not grown to match
    ># the expansion of Cyrillic.

    A good update of Rick's original text.

    What is this thread for? We're going to encode Phoenician. It is the
    forerunner of Greek and Etruscan. Hebrew went its separate way. The
    fact that there is a one-to-one correspondence isn't important. We
    have that for Coptic and Greek too and we are disunifying them. I'm
    pretty sure we're going to encode Samaritan too....

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 11:15:25 EDT