From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 21:22:06 EDT
Michael Everson a écrit :
> At 11:51 -0400 2004-04-28, email@example.com wrote:
>> but I still want to see an explication here of exactly
>> why these various abjads are being encoded separately from Hebrew, given
>> that there is a one-to-one mapping and a continuous path of mutual
> The same can be said for Coptic, Greek, and Gothic.
> Because Hebrew is only *one* of Phoenician's descendants and because
> there is a requirement to distinguish the two in plain text. There
> exist Hebrew texts and Greek texts which use this script to display
> the Tetragrammaton, for instance.
[PA] I have a question about this. I see that your figure 14 says « Job
42, again containing the Tetragrammaton in Phoenician script alongside
Greek text. Apparently no copies of the Septuagint dated before the
mid-2nd century CE substitutes the Tetragrammaton with Kuros ‘LORD’.
Sample from www.eliyah.com/lxx.html ».
And your Figure 13 says « The Tetragrammaton in Phoenician script is
indicated with the large black arrow; the rest of the text is Greek. »
Why do you say Phoenician here while the source you mention says «
*Notice that the Tetragrammaton is written in the ancient Hebrew
(Paleo-Hebrew) script. Here is another example of an ancient fragment of
the Septuagint dating to the First Century CE (AD). This fragment
contains parts Job 42* »
Ancient Hebrew or Phoenician ? Is it the same for you ?
> I am actually astonished to see it suggested that it should be unified
> with Hebrew. Print a newspaper article in French with Fraktur or
> Gaelic and people will be able to read it. [...] Print a newspaper
> article in Hebrew with Phoenician letters and no one wil be able to
> read it.
[PA] Try with Sütterlin and I don't believe many more will be able to
(This cryptic paragraph would have been written
http://cooptel.qc.ca/~pandries/suetterlinenanglaise.jpg by my schoolmasters)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 28 2004 - 21:58:34 EDT