From: Peter Kirk (peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com)
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 11:13:40 EDT
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
http://www.orindalodge.org/fonts/kadosh_samaritan_manual_1_10.pdf
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 peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 13:04:30 EDT