Re: For Phoenician

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 17:08:27 CDT

John Hudson <tiro at tiro dot com> wrote:

> Some acknowledgement that there is disagreement in this field would
> also be welcome. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying
> 'this encoding unified the following writing systems based on this
> analysis', while also acknowledging that this is not the only possible
> analysis and that some scholars may disagree or propose altertnative
> analyses.

Take Khmer as an example. TUS 4.0 explains, very carefully and
delicately, that while the Unicode encoding model for Khmer does not
necessarily square with the way Cambodian children learn to write, the
model still works and is not horribly broken, and nobody is an idiot for
having encoded it that way or for suggesting another encoding.

Likewise, if Phoenician were encoded, the standard might include an
explanation that the separate encoding reflects a scholarly opinion that
Phoenician is a separate script, that not all scholars agree with this
assessment, that there is an existing tradition for regarding Phoenician
as a font shift from Hebrew and encoding Phoenician texts with Hebrew
code points, and -- most importantly -- that neither scholarly opinion
is "wrong" and nobody is an idiot for subscribing to one view or the

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

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