Re: New contribution

From: Ernest Cline (
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 16:09:31 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: New contribution"

    From: John Hudson <>
    > Michael Everson wrote:
    > > At 19:10 -0700 2004-04-29, John Hudson wrote:
    > >
    > >> Michael, Peter is not talking about the Phoenician language being
    > >> represented in the Hebrew script, he is talking about the common
    > >> practice of semiticists to *encode* the Phoenician script using Hebrew
    > >> codepoints. The representation of the text is in Phoenician glyphs,
    > >> not Hebrew, but these glyphs are treated as typeface variants of
    > > I have plenty of fonts where the Phoenician glyphs are treated as
    > > typeface variants of Latin.
    > But presumably these are not used to write English text or, for that
    > Latin. The issue at question is the encoding of *Hebrew* text as written
    > Phoenician-style letters.
    > This isn't a show-stopper, but I've asked several times now how you
    > and others think semiticists should encode such text: with Hebrew
    > characters corresponding to the language of the text, or with
    > 'Phoenician' characters corresponding to the look of the text?

    Is this controversy over Paleo-Hebrew occurring in any context
    other than the tetragrammaton? If it isn't, one possibility would be
    assign variation sequences for just the three Hebrew letters used
    to write the tetragrammaton to indicate that a Phoenician-style
    glyph is to be used for those Hebrew letters. Using variation
    sequences for the whole abjad instead of just three characters
    to indicate the glyph style is also a possibility, but at that point,
    Unicode would almost certainly be better off encoding
    Phoenician glyphs as a separate script in the first place.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 16:43:08 EDT