Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 16:20:53 EDT
John Hudson scripsit:
> 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.
To which Michael will likely reply that encoding Phoenician will not prevent
> 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.
That last clause doesn't capture the true problem. We don't want a single
encoding for Serbian, e.g., with the difference between Cyrillic and Latin
representations relegated to a font, though the analysis and comparison of
Serbian *is* doubtless complicated by using two different encodings for it.
(Fortunately, transliteration at the level of Unicode is easy; Mongolian
is a far worse problem.)
The point is that, unlike Cyrillic and Latin, all these 22CWSAs are just
spatial and temporal variants of the same thing, at least according to me.
Michael says it ain't so, but he takes it as a personal attack when anyone
presses him for reasons.
-- The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound John Cowan <email@example.com> free-range chickens (except they have http://www.reutershealth.com teeth, arms instead of wings and http://www.ccil.org/~cowan dinosaurlike tails). --Elyse Grasso
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 16:50:58 EDT