Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools

From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:39:26 EDT

Next message: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "RE: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew"

Previous message: Karljürgen Feuerherm: "Re: Later emendations to cuneiform encoding"
Maybe in reply to: Joan_Wardell@sil.org: "Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools"
Next in thread: Peter Kirk: "Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools"
Reply: Peter Kirk: "Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At 10:36 -0700 2003-07-29, Peter Kirk wrote:

>The only shred of untruth is that what I said I think is true is in
>fact an exaggeration, the abolition is only partial.

Hence it was not "officially abolished".

-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

Next message: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "RE: Yerushala(y)im - or Biblical Hebrew"
Previous message: Karljürgen Feuerherm: "Re: Later emendations to cuneiform encoding"
Maybe in reply to: Joan_Wardell@sil.org: "Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools"
Next in thread: Peter Kirk: "Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools"
Reply: Peter Kirk: "Re: Back to Hebrew, was OT:darn'd fools"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 14:15:22 EDT