Re: New contribution

From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 13:02:43 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: New contribution"

    John Hudson a écrit :

    > Again, I am not opposing the encoding of 'Phoenician': I just want to
    > see the real issues resolved. To my mind, there is essentially only
    > one major issue in encoding the ancient North Semitic script
    > separately from Hebrew: how should users encode Palaeo-Hebrew texts?
    > With the new codepoints, or with the Hebrew codepoints? The text is
    > Hebrew, but the appropriate glyph forms are ancient North Semitic. I
    > do think there is the possibility of significant confusion, which is
    > not grounds for refusing to encode the ancient North Semitic script,
    > but does suggest that a specific recommendation should be made, either
    > in the TUS or by an appropriate and representative scholarly body.

    I concur with John, I believe the Phoenician proposal is a good one and
    a useful one (I'm partcularly more interested in the Punic and Neopunic
    and I believe the Phoenician encoding is a much more natural one than
    Hebrew). This said I would like to see Peter Kirk's issues addressed :
    what to do with Paleo-Hebrew data which are -- if I understand properly
    -- encoded with Hebrew codepoints and are considered as merely stylistic
    variants of Hebrew.

    P. A.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 14:30:57 EDT