Re: Colourful scripts and Aramaic

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 16:43:03 EDT

  • Next message: Kent Karlsson: "RE: Conflicting principles"

    At 13:12 -0700 2003-08-07, Peter Kirk wrote:

    >Well, it seems to me that in the case of the Aramaic proposal we
    >don't even have that. We have an archaic version of the script which
    >is now used mainly for Hebrew, and which many scholars still call
    >Aramaic (in distinction from paleo-Hebrew) although Unicode calls it
    >Hebrew. The Aramaic glyphs are almost all recognisably the same as
    >or slight variants on the Hebrew ones. And Hebrew script is already
    >used, uncontroversially, for large corpora of Aramaic e.g. in the
    >Talmud. Why a new script for the few surviving examples of ancient
    >Aramaic in this script?

    People. It's the widespread offshoot used throughout the Middle East
    that spawned Brahmic and Uighur and other scripts. It isn't
    necessarily the thing you think is confined to three scraps of
    papyrus or whatever. We aren't working actively on this now. We don't
    have an active proposal. We have something roadmapped, and I for one
    don't want to spend time right now defending its roadmapping to you
    apart from what is in my earlier paper on Semitic scripts. Could you
    turn off the fire alarms?

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 17:26:24 EDT