From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 22:10:20 EDT
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 10:34 -0700 2004-04-29, Peter Kirk wrote:
>> But what answer do you have to my point, made in more detail
>> elsewhere, that it will cause total confusion, and defeat the purposes
>> of Unicode, if some people use the new characters and others don't?
> Frankly I'd say it's an unreasonable suggestion on your part. NO ONE is
> forced to use Sinhala, Brahmi, Myanmar, or Devanagari script to
> represent Buddhist texts in Pali. Scholars, and the Pali Text Society,
> happily ignore these scripts and use Latin. Similarly, NO ONE will be
> forced to use Phoenician script to represent early Phoenician language
> if they find it hard to read and prefer to represent it in Hebrew
> script, or in Latin.
Michael, Peter is not talking about the Phoenician language being represented in the
Hebrew script, he is talking about the common practice of semiticists to *encode* the
Phoenician script using Hebrew codepoints. The representation of the text is in Phoenician
glyphs, not Hebrew, but these glyphs are treated as typeface variants of Hebrew.
At first, I too thought Peter was talking about transliteration into Hebrew script, but
today I realised that he was talking about encoding Phoenician glyphs as Hebrew characters.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC email@example.com I often play against man, God says, but it is he who wants to lose, the idiot, and it is I who want him to win. And I succeed sometimes In making him win. - Charles Peguy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 22:52:29 EDT