Re: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why Aramaicnow)

From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Mon Dec 29 2003 - 00:30:40 EST

  • Next message: foster.feng@ni.com: "Foster Feng is out of the office today"

    ----- Message d'origine -----
    De: "D. Starner" <shalesller@writeme.com>

    > Indeed, by the same argument, we could encode a lot of scripts
    > together. ISCII did it for Indic scripts. I'm sure we could do
    > some serious merging among syllabic scripts - 12A8(&#4776;) is the same
    > as 13A7(&#5031;)

    I understand this is said tongue in cheek, but even then…

    This merging seems reasonable to you because you consider their similar English names, but not their different phonetic value ([kɜ] vs [kʰa]) or their ISO 10646 French names for instance (respectively KÄ for Ethiopic and KA Cherokee). KA being 12AB in the French version. See Daniels-Bright (Table 51.5 which gives kä (ka) for U+12A8 [kɜ] and ka for U+12AB [ka] or [kʌ]) and Amharique pour francophones (L'Harmattan) (p. 5 which gives ke/kä for U+12A8 and ka for U+12AB).

    The English names are, of course, perfectly okay (don't want to open a can of worms here;-)).

    P. A.
    - o - O - o -
    ISO 10646 en français
    http://pages.infinit.net/hapax

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 29 2003 - 01:13:27 EST