For Phoenician

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 12:25:33 CDT

At 13:08 -0400 2004-05-02, Ernest Cline wrote:

>As long as you are doing a revision. One thing that would make
>someone like me who knows very little about the glyphs themselves
>happier with the proposal would be if there would be some
>explanation with examples of why the proposed pruning of the Hebrew
>branch from the Phoenician root is being made along the lines
>envisioned in the proposal,

Reasonable glyph analysis based on the work of other script experts,
mostly. "What looks Phoenician?" Informs this pretty much, here, in
N2311, and in most histories of writing. Mark Shoulson and I may get
a chance to look at a revision of N2311 (which has been available for
comment for three years).

>and not for example some other proposal that would say, encode Punic
>as the branch as treat the square Hebrew script as the rightful
>continuation of the original Phoenician script.

Samaritan would be the most direct continuation of the original Phoenician.

>The proposal states baldly:
>The historical cut that has been made here considers the line from
>Phoenician to Punic to represent a single continuous branch of
>script evolution.

I think Rick McGowan wrote that sentence in UTR#3. There is a
continuous line from Phoenician to Punic; there are also some other
branches off that line which it seems sensible to unify with

>without giving any reason why this cut is to be preferred over other
>potential cuts.

When lumping, like goes with like. We lump using our intelligence and
common sense. :-)

Do you really think it necessary that the proposal be a thesis
reprising a hundred years of script analysis?

Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT