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

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 14:04:34 EDT

  • Next message: Karljürgen Feuerherm: "Re: Later emendations to cuneiform encoding APOLOGY"

    On 29/07/2003 10:39, Michael Everson wrote:

    > 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".

    OK, it was officially abolished only from some words or contexts. And
    itis officially not used in Switzerland.

    And my point stands. Its official non-use in Switzerland does not imply
    that it shouldn't be in Unicode, because others do use it. Similarly,
    the official non-use of a special holam vav in Israel, at least in so
    far as SII is official, does not imply that the character should not be
    in Unicode. Arguably SII doesn't represent even the majority of users of
    Hebrew, if we include all observant Jews outside Israel as well as
    scholars etc.

    Peter Kirk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 14:38:53 EDT