From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 09:41:31 EDT
At 13:45 -0700 2004-04-28, Peter Kirk wrote:
>The best argument that Michael has is that Phoenician glyphs look
>very different from Hebrew glyphs.
And the etymology. We have taken the historical origin of letters and
scripts to be a criterion for disunification. YOGH and EZH is one
>But the variation of some Latin and Cyrillic letters can be just as great.
Unsupported assertion. You don't have anything like the difference
between a single-stroke Hebrew YOD and a three-pronged Phoenician YOD
between Cyrillic and Latin.
>For that matter, modern cursive Hebrew is almost as far from
>reference glyph Hebrew as Phoenician is (and quite illegible to
>me!), but no one has proposed encoding it separately.
That's true for cursive *anything*, really. for most of cursive
modern Hebrew the ductus-origin of the shapes is clear enough if you
>Perhaps the Hebrew list is the best place to discuss the distinction
>between Hebrew and Phoenician.
I don't think so. Phoenician and Hebrew are different scripts. ;-)
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 15:04:16 EDT