Re: Colourful scripts and Aramaic

From: Karljürgen Feuerherm (
Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 18:03:41 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Colourful scripts and Aramaic"

    My knowledge of Aramaic script is a little scanty, but my understanding is
    more or less the same as Peter's.

    Which leads me to suggest that encoding Aramaic separately would be a bit
    like encoding Old Akkadian (Cuneiform) separately from NeoAssyrian
    (Cuneiform). Which would be a bit silly (and not what we are planning in
    that arena).... Note that some people are even willing to argue that the
    substrate languages might be considered distinct, too--in case that is the
    argument which would be applied to Aramaic.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Peter Kirk" <>
    To: "John Cowan" <>
    Cc: <>; "Michael Everson" <>
    Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:12 PM
    Subject: Re: Colourful scripts and Aramaic

    > On 07/08/2003 13:00, John Cowan wrote:
    > >Peter Kirk scripsit:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>Is it a principle of Unicode that a new script should not be encoded
    > >>because it is one to one correspondence with an existing one, even
    > >>though there is no graphical relationship? Well, that is certainly in
    > >>conflict with Michael's comments about Aramaic, Samaritan etc.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > >No. But it's a principle (an informal one) not to use resources encoding
    > >symbol repertoires that are just monalphabetic encryptions of existing
    > >language-specific repertoires. Which seems to me (I am willing to be
    > >corrected on this) to be what we have here.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > 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?
    > --
    > Peter Kirk
    > (personal)
    > (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 18:51:42 EDT