Re: New contribution

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 11:12:24 EDT

  • Next message: Rick McGowan: "Re: New contribution"

    At 10:42 -0400 2004-04-29, Dean Snyder wrote:

    >I don't view Phoenician to Hebrew as transliteration, particularly for
    >Old Hebrew - they are the same script.

    No they are not. Phoenician is the mother. Her
    most direct daughter is Samaritan (which will not
    be unified with Hebrew). Another daughter was an
    intermediate Aramaic script which itself had many
    children, only one of which was Jewish Hebrew as
    used in Israel today. (Others include Pahlavi and
    Brahmi. Whether that intermediate Aramaic
    deserves encoding is not under discussion now and
    has nothing do to with the Phoenician proposal.)

    Phoenician can be, and often is, transcribed and
    published by Semiticists in Hebrew
    transliteration. There is no problem with that
    practice. It's also often transliterated into

    Handwritten Hebrew script and Sütterlin are not
    analogous examples, and are not adequate
    arguments for unifying Hebrew with Phoenician.
    Hebrew, friends, is ONLY ONE of Phoenician's
    children. Why should she be unified with her
    Hebrew daughter? Why not her Old Italic, or
    Greek, or other daughters?

    The Greek and Etruscan alphabets do not derive from the Hebrew alphabet.

    I do not propose to "disunify" Phoenician from
    Hebrew. In my view, Phoenician has never been,
    and cannot be, unified with Hebrew. They are
    different scripts. They are not font variants in
    any sense of the term.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 13:14:19 EDT