Re: New contribution

From: Patrick Andries (
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 18:30:39 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: Public Review Issues Updated"

    John Hudson a écrit :

    > Okay, perhaps we're getting somewhere and beginning to understand each
    > other. What you are saying, in effect, is that there is already a de
    > facto unification of Phoenician and Hebrew encoding, employed by a
    > significant user group.
    > I agree that if Unicode were to de jure disunify this de facto
    > unification, the implication would be that a) continued use of Hebrew
    > characters for Phoenician script would be problematic*, b) existing
    > data so encoded should be re-encoded (fairly trivial given the
    > structural identity of the scripts), and c) not everyone will be happy.

    [PA] Given the negative aspects (a and c), if indeed there is a de facto
    unification of Phoenician, Punic, Neopunic(*), Paleo-Hebrew with Hebrew,
    what would be gained from the proposed disunification away from Hebrew ?

    P. A.

    (*) I'm not convinced Neopunic scholars code their text in Hebrew, do
    you know if this is the case Peter (Kirk) ? I must say, however, that
    in other cases this may well be the case (e.g. when James Février gives
    Th. Nöldeke's Phoenician characters names (also used by Michael) the
    reference glyph next to the Phoenician names are modern Hebrew square

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 19:48:42 EDT