From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 16:17:46 CDT
>>This is a silly question, because the whole debate is about that constitutes
>>encoded'. The Mesha Stele can be perfectly easily encoded using existing Hebrew
>>and displayed in the Phoenician style with appropriate glyphs.
>>I'm not saying that this is necessarily the best encoding for the Mesha Stele,
>>certainly not convinced that there is anything improper about it, or that having
>>separate encoding for those glyphs would be more proper.
> There's nothing improper about transliteration. Likewise, the Phoenician
> inscription of Edessa in Macedonia could be easily encoded using existing
> Hebrew code points, even though its language is Greek.
Again, you are missing the point because you are *assuming* that encoding the Mesha Stele
with Unicode Hebrew characters = transliteration, i.e. that there is some other encoding
that is more proper or even 'true'. The contra-argument is that the 'Phoenician' script is
identical to the Hebrew script, the differences in letterforms being merely glyphic
variants. The contra-argument disagrees with your premise that encoding the Mesha Stele
with Hebrew characters is transliteration. You can't proceed past that argument simply by
restating your premise.
I'm not saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the contra-argument, but don't think you
can duck the argument by begging the question.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC firstname.lastname@example.org I often play against man, God says, but it is he who wants to lose, the idiot, and it is I who want him to win. And I succeed sometimes In making him win. - Charles Peguy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT