Re: New contribution

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 14:00:02 EDT

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

    At 20:45 -0400 2004-04-29, Dean Snyder wrote:

    >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.
    >What are you doing with Old Hebrew and Old Aramaic in this scheme?
    >You have a pan-Phoenician view of alphabetic script development and
    >dispersion. Where did you get it?
    >But you are not specifying which alphabet(s) they did derive from. Why not?
    >You need to research this much better before making such authoritarian,
    >"in my view", statements.
    >Mighty strong statements with no authority given to back them up.

    Mr Snyder.

    It is not my place to instruct you in the rudiments of historical and
    comparative linguistics, or in the more specific vocabulary used in
    the comparison of writing systems and their genesis.

    Nor is it my pleasure to be beset with facile generalist questions
    treating me as some sort of ignorant graduate student. I do, in fact,
    know what I am talking about, and I have, in fact, actually done the
    work to put together a proposal for comment.

    I appreciate the attention Ernest Cline has put into reviewing the
    proposal; he is right to point out that if we have unified a number
    of scripts into Phoenician, we should ensure that all of the
    numberforms used by them are unified into the set as well.

    And to answer your fourth question, Mr Snyder, Greek derives from the
    Phoenician alphabet, and Etruscan derives from Euboean Greek.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 15:13:10 EDT