From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 11:01:32 CST
On 30/04/2004 06:45, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>Suppose that a modern Hebrew text is speaking about Phoenician words, the script
>distinction is not only a matter of style but carries semantic distinctions as
>well, as they are distinct languages. It's obvious that a modern Hebrew reader
>will not be able to decipher a Phoenician word, and even understand it if it is
>transliterated to the Hebrew script.
This argument doesn't work. In books in (for example) English discussing
foreign languages, including those written in Latin script, example
words in foreign languages are often set in an italic font. This font
distinction carries semantic distinctions in just the same way, and
relates to distinct languages.
Do modern Hebrew texts actually use Phoenician script to quote
Phoenician words? I would be surprised if they do this consistently,
although some might. Or is this example actually baseless?
Anyway, Phoenician and Hebrew are barely distinct languages, they are
extremely similar. A modern Hebrew reader could probably make sense of a
large part of a Phoenician inscription transliterated into Hebrew.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT