From: C J Fynn (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 04:18:25 EDT
"Dean Snyder" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Kenneth Whistler wrote at 6:15 PM on Wednesday, April 28, 2004:
> >> 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 06:24:56 EDT