From: Dean Snyder (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 20:45:10 EDT
Michael Everson wrote at 11:12 AM on Thursday, April 29, 2004:
>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).
What exactly do you mean by "mother" and "daughter" here?
If you mean the chronologically prior and direct ancestor, then I would
be very interested in the evidence upon which you base such opinions.
>Another daughter was an
>intermediate Aramaic script which itself had many
>children, only one of which was Jewish Hebrew as
>used in Israel today.
What are you doing with Old Hebrew and Old Aramaic in this scheme?
>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?
You have a pan-Phoenician view of alphabetic script development and
dispersion. Where did you get it?
>The Greek and Etruscan alphabets do not derive from the Hebrew alphabet.
But you are not specifying which alphabet(s) they did derive from. Why not?
>I do not propose to "disunify" Phoenician from
>Hebrew. In my view, Phoenician has never been,
>and cannot be, unified with Hebrew.
You need to research this much better before making such authoritarian,
"in my view", statements.
>different scripts. They are not font variants in
>any sense of the term.
Mighty strong statements with no authority given to back them up.
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
Computer Science Department
Whiting School of Engineering
218C New Engineering Building
3400 North Charles Street
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
office: 410 516-6850
cell: 717 817-4897
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 21:14:39 EDT