Re: New contribution

From: John Hudson (
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 15:40:08 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: New contribution"

    Michael Everson wrote:

    > You would encode the text in Phoenician script if you wanted to encode
    > it in the script in which it was originally written. You would encode
    > the text in Hebrew script if you wanted to encode it in the script in
    > which it was later written (after the Exile) and if you wanted to encode
    > it in the script in which it is currently written.

    Sigh. Are you just not getting the question? The people who have an issue with this do not
    recognise two distinct scripts, and they are not going to recognise two distinct scripts
    whether Unicode encodes them as such or not. You can repeat yourself as often as you like,
    but this is not about wanting to encode in one script or another, this is about people
    who, because of the field of expertise in which they work, are dealing with texts in a
    language that is normally encoded using a particular set of *characters* being given
    another set of characters *for the same texts*.

    On the one hand, the obvious recommendation would be to tell semiticists to continue doing
    what they have been doing: encoding as Hebrew and displaying with Phoenician-style glyph
    variants, as this enables textual analysis and comparison with a larger body of Hebrew
    text in which such experts are likely to be interested. But your proposal specifically
    states that the 'Phoenician' characters should be used to encode Palaeo-Hebrew, as if
    somehow Hebrew and Hebrew are different languages when they look different.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC
    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 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 16:12:34 EDT