Re: Aramaic, Samaritan, Phoenician

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 11:13:40 EDT

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

    On 15/07/2003 07:21, Michael Everson wrote:

    > 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....

    Well, I started it, so let me comment. I have already accepted from what
    I have seen that Samaritan should be encoded, and
    strengthens the case for that, for me. And I think it is reasonable also
    that Phoenician should be encoded. This is on the principle accepted for
    Glagolitic that each of these scripts "appears unrecognizably different
    from" Hebrew.

    I don't consider that the same case has been made for Palmyrene Aramaic.
    The script proposed for this is not "unrecognizably different from" but
    very similar to the square Aramaic script which is actually the
    technical name for the prototypical Hebrew script. It already says in
    Unicode (3.0 section 8.1) that "The Hebrew script is used for writing in
    the Hebrew language as well as Yiddish, Judezmo (Ladino), and a number
    of other languages." It might be suitable to add a note that the Hebrew
    script may also be used for ancient writings in Aramaic as well as
    Hebrew. These "ancient writings" could include Palmyrene etc
    inscriptions as well as the Bible, the Talmud etc.

    Peter Kirk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 13:04:30 EDT