Re: New contribution

From: C J Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 04:18:25 EDT

  • Next message: C J Fynn: "Re: New contribution"

     "Dean Snyder" <dean.snyder@jhu.edu> wrote:

    > Kenneth Whistler wrote at 6:15 PM on Wednesday, April 28, 2004:
    >
    > >Dean,
    > >
    > >> Then why were Chinese, Japanese, and Korean unified?
    > >
    > >Please refer to TUS 4.0, pp. 296-303, and, in particular, Table 11-2.
    >
    > >> I'm really not
    > >> trying to open a can of worms here,
    > >
    > >Yes you are.
    >
    > Actually, no I'm not. I think CJK is a very apropos example - unification
    > in the face of strong (and very politically active) opposition. If THOSE
    > diascripts could be unified, then why shouldn't Canaanite be unified, all
    > the more because unification not only has strong SUPPORT from its user
    > community, but the user community is, in fact, already treating it as
    > though it were unified.

    OTOH there is the example of all the Brahmi derived scripts which have *not*
    been unified. I'd think they are structurally much closer to Phoenician, Hebrew
    etc. than CJK script(s) are.

    - Chris



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 06:24:56 EDT