From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 10:13:37 CST
On 29/04/2004 20:26, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> 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 Hebrew.
>> At first, I too thought Peter was talking about transliteration into
>> Hebrew script, but today I realised that he was talking about
>> encoding Phoenician glyphs as Hebrew characters.
> Are you sure about that? Peter, is this correct?
Yes, this is what I have been talking about, mostly. Sorry to everyone
for not making this clear. I take it as self-evident that a Phoenician
etc text to be presented ("transliterated" if you like) with square
Hebrew glyphs should be encoded with the Unicode Hebrew characters. What
is in dispute is how a text to be presented with Phoenician or Old
Canaanite glyphs should be encoded.
> I'd been making the same assumption all along as well. In the way of
> corroboration, I have here Ze'ev Ben-Ḥayyim's book "A Grammar of
> Samaritan Hebrew." Samaritans generally use their distinctive
> scripts, especially in their religious books, but Ben-Ḥayyim writes
> *everything* with ordinary square Hebrew letters; there isn't a
> Samaritan-style base-glyph in the book, so far as I can tell (though
> he does show some Samaritan vowels on the square letters). ...
This is an interesting one!
> ... This isn't exactly the same situation, and it is an isolated case,
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT