Re: why Aramaic now

From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Wed Dec 24 2003 - 22:14:37 EST

  • Next message: Christopher John Fynn: "Re: why Aramaic now lumpers and splitters"

    On 12/24/03 15:02, Elaine Keown wrote:

    >Some of the sets of symbols I found---which I simply
    >assumed could be added to "Hebrew"--are innately
    >controversial because of the Roadmap.
    >
    What sorts of things do you mean, Elaine? "Innately controversial"
    sounds like a pretty strong term, and while I believe you mean it, I
    have trouble imagining the kind of thing you mean. Could you give us an
    example or two, if it can be done with less than a page of background?
    (I know that "give me an example" is not as simple a request as it
    sounds, because the background info is so important. But maybe there's
    something you can think of).

    ~mark



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 24 2003 - 22:57:33 EST