From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 08:26:13 CDT
At 05:10 -0800 2004-05-03, D. Starner wrote:
>And I've got Latin fonts, whose use will render a Bible unclean.
>(Might come in handy for Tantric religious works, though.) More
>seriously, I imagine some German religious communities were very
>strict on the Bible in Fraktur instead of a radical new Roman font.
>It still doesn't mean they're seperate scripts; it just means that
>they are picky on how their religious texts are presented.
I don't buy that argument, any more than I buy the argument that the
historical relationships between these scripts is unimportant, or the
argument that despite how complex Square Hebrew has become with it
signs and diacritics and stretched letters and alef-lamed ligatures
and Yiddish ligatures
If you people, after all of this discussion, can think that it is
possible to print a newspaper article in Hebrew language or Yiddish
in Phoenician letters, then all I can say is that understanding of
the fundamentals of script identity is at an all-time low. I'm really
I don't think that any of the arguments against encoding Phoenician
separately from Hebrew wash. Some people have made Hebrew font hacks
with Phoenician glyphs? So what? There are Latin font hacks just the
same. You can map one-to-one to Hebrew? So what? You can map
one-to-one to Syriac and Greek, and probably others. You want to
encode Moabite texts in Hebrew transliteration? Go right ahead.
-- 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