From: jameskass@att.net
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 16:38:49 CDT
John Hudson wrote,
> 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.
(The ISP here is line-breaking John's text inappropriately.)
The Meshe Stele and the inscription of Edessa were originally written
in the same script. If encoding the Edessa inscription using the
Hebrew range would be transliteration, then so would the encoding
of the Meshe Stele in the Hebrew range.
If Phoenician is considered a glyphic variation of modern Hebrew, then
it can also be considered a glyphic variation of modern Greek. Would
it then follow that modern Greek should have been unified with modern
Hebrew? (Directionality aside.)
If Unicode were about encoding languages rather than scripts, then
I would see nothing wrong with encoding the Meshe Stele using
modern Hebrew characters and relegating correct display to a
font switch.
Best regards,
James Kass
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT