From: Ernest Cline (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 13:31:22 CDT
> [Original Message]
> From: Michael Everson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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).
I'll make that near the top of my to read list then.
> >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
Well then, why doesn't the proposal for Phoenician reflect that?
> >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. :-)
The only problem with common sense is that it isn't very common,
and sometimes it isn't very sensible. :) In my life, one central lesson
I have learned the hard way is to never assume that someone else
will grasp what you consider obvious.
> Do you really think it necessary that the proposal be a thesis
> reprising a hundred years of script analysis?
I don't think a thesis would be required, but at the very least a few
pointers such as those that you gave in this reply to the basis used
for your determination. I haven't had a chance to go back and look
at those pointers yet, so I can't say if they answer the questions I have,
but from your description of them it sounds as if they would.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT