Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, Phoenician

From: John Cowan (
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 12:05:55 EDT

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

    Michael Everson scripsit:

    > >The two letters share not a single formal feature.
    > Yes they do. The ring and ear of the top part of a Times g are
    > equivalent to the flat line of the Insular g, and the bottom part is
    > the same for both, give or take loopiness.

    You can find a similar mapping from "t" to "T" as well, and
    nobody calls that a font difference. Similarly, I can read
    texts with a long s, but not ones in which f has been falsely
    substituted for it -- it quickly becomes infuriating. See and weep.

    > >We disunify Glagolitic, and rightly so too. But that does not mean
    > >that there are not intermediate cases that ought to be unified, and
    > >without definite criteria, it's hard to know what to do.
    > Just grok them? :-)

    Nope, won't work.

    > >Disunification of whole scripts (using that word without prejudice)

    I meant non-unification.

    > When we get to encoding Samaritan, I guess the proposal will stand by
    > itself or not.

    Not if there are no criteria to judge it on that are better than "See, it's

    John Cowan
    Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam.
    Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam.
            --Ogden Nash, _No Doctors Today, Thank You_

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 12:57:43 EDT