From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 18:48:01 CDT
At 14:17 -0700 2004-05-02, 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.
I don't believe that it is possible to claim that the Phoenician
script is identical to the Hebrew script. When scripts have identity,
it is possible to change fonts and still have people be able to
recognize them. We did this when we unified the three Syriac styles.
We did it when we disunified Khutsuri from Mkhedruli, and when we
disunified Coptic from Greek. Give or take some spelling, it's
possible to take an Estrangelo Syriac text, with all its points and
dots and things, and change to a different style without appreciable
It is not possible to take an encoded Genesis text which is pointed
and cantillated, and blithly change the font to Moabite or Punic and
expect anyone to even recognize it as Hebrew.
>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.
I think I didn't duck here.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT