From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 18:53:35 EDT
Raymond Mercier wrote:
> There are less obvious omissions:
> 1. Kharoshthi, a RtoL script much used in North West India,
> and regarded by everyone as a derivative from a form of
> the Aramaic script used in that region. ...
And to add to Michael's reply, the historical status of
Kharoshthi as a derivative of Aramaic is not at issue here.
An extensive proposal for Kharoshthi has been approved by
the UTC, encoded at U+10A00..U+10A5F, and has started its
way into further rounds of review and ballotting in WG2.
If you are concerned about Kharoshthi, the right thing to
be doing now is to get involved in the national body review
of the Khoroshthi encoding proposal in WG2, rather than
battering a suggested summary of "early Semitic scripts"
aimed at helping the roadmapping of those scripts for
possible future encoding.
Note also that a "roadmapping" by Michael is not
intended to be a definitive scholarly work about the
history of Aramaic or any other script.
> 2. Pahlavi, widely used to write Middle Persian.
> This involved a troublesome mixture of Persian reading
> of Aramaic words, a subject requiring more elaboration
> than is needed here.
Also, as Michael indicated, independently roadmapped
(for the block at U+0800..U+085F),
with a proposal available for review and comment:
That proposal clearly acknowledges the Aramaic origins
of Pahlavi. But again, the useful input here would be
to examine and provide feedback on the proposed encoding
of Avestan and Pahlavi.
> Raymond Mercier
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 19:22:54 EDT