Re: New contribution

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 09:41:31 EDT

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

    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
    pay attention.

    >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 *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 15:04:16 EDT