From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2004 - 07:33:57 EST
On 15/01/2004 13:37, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 12:19 -0800 2004-01-15, John Hudson wrote:
>> Do you know if the directionality issue was considered at that time.
> No, we didn't consider it at the time. We dropped the ball on that one.
>> I sent Michael a number of scans of the Samaritan shin in use as a
>> symbol in BHS apparatus critici, including in use in direct proximity
>> with LTR letters, numbers and other symbols.
> I have that, yes.
Michael, you seem to have written "shan" rather than "shin" twice
independently in the subject line, so presumably this is not a typo. Do
you actually hold that the letter is called "shan" rather than "shin"?
Do you have any evidence for this? Are you basing this on the table at
http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm? As this table looks rather
old, possibly copied from a 19th century book, it would be good to check
that these are the names in current use by the Samaritan community.
Meanwhile the scholarly world, for whose benefit the LTR symbol is being
proposed, consistently refers to this letter as shin rather than shan -
although the SIL proposal of June 2003 for this character avoided the
problem by proposing the name SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH SIGN.
(I note that you are still awaiting a public reply to
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 16 2004 - 08:06:13 EST