Re: New contribution

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 20:21:24 EDT

  • Next message: Mark E. Shoulson: "Re: New contribution"

    Peter Kirk wrote:

    > On 28/04/2004 21:50, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
    >> ...
    >> Samaritan (and likely Aramaic) you have to watch out for: unlike
    >> "Phoenician" or ancient Canaanite, these have *modern* users who are
    >> not academics, but people who use the scripts as living, working ways
    >> of writing ordinary things. It isn't just scholars who need to be
    >> heard on those. (yes, I am in touch with modern Samaritans including
    >> a very prominent person in Samaritan culture for decades, and also
    >> with a preƫminent scholar of Samaritan manuscripts. We're working on
    >> it).
    > On Samaritan, I agree. But where are your modern users of a
    > distinctive Aramaic script? Well, there is Syriac; and there is the
    > Hebrew script which is often known among scholars as Aramaic script,
    > to distinguish it from paleo-Hebrew, and because it was used for
    > Aramaic before it was used for Hebrew. And Aramaic is also written in
    > Latin, Arabic, Cyrillic and maybe other already defined scripts. But I
    > have never seen any evidence of any other distinctive modern Aramaic
    > script. If you or anyone has any, please let me know. If not, you
    > should drop your "likely".

    I was hedging my bets. I know that Aramaic, unlike Phoenician and Old
    Canaanite, still has a few communities of modern users. Since Aramaic
    was mentioned by some other people as being among the scripts possibly
    to be disunified, for all I know there was still a distinctive Aramaic
    script in use (apart from modern "Hebrew"). There may not be; I just
    didn't want to ignore it in case there was.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 20:54:54 EDT