Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, Phoenician

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 10:53:26 EDT

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

    On 15/07/2003 06:22, John Cowan wrote:

    >Michael Everson scripsit:
    >>>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.
    VVELLIHOPEVVEVVILL... ahem... Well, I hope we will count ancient Roman
    as Latin script rather than add to Unicode yet another new script which
    is almost identical to an existing one. But then it would make more
    sense than proposals to add new scripts or partial scripts for biblical
    Hebrew and for Aramaic, for at least ancient Roman inscriptions can be
    distinguished from nearly all modern texts by being in a different
    language. But the existing Hebrew characters in Unicode are already in
    use for biblical Hebrew texts, as well as for what are probably the
    majority of surviving examples of ancient Aramaic which is not Syriac -
    the Aramaic portions of the Hebrew Bible, and presumably also the
    Aramaic parts of the Talmud and other ancient Jewish writings. Otherwise
    we end up with a new script for a few ancient inscriptions which are
    only slightly different in glyph shapes and repertoire and in language
    from an extensive corpus in an existing Unicode block.

    Peter Kirk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 12:50:46 EDT