From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 20:58:22 CDT
At 10:12 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
>OK, if you say so, but then, name names, or at least demonstrate the
>truth of this statement. According to your proposal, you have not
>been in contact with any users of the Phoenician script, but I
>suppose you could still know who they are. But then Deborah Anderson
>has just stated that she is a user of it, and I know you have had
>extensive contact with her. I thought of accusing you of lying in
>the proposal, but it is possible that you were unaware that she is a
>user. I suggest that your revise your proposal to mention your
>contact with her, and preferably to summarise her good reasons for
>supporting your proposal.
I already said that I thought of filling in my own name (as a user of
the script) and then thought better of it, thinking to avoid trouble.
I didn't go and consult anyone else because Rick and I believed (and
still believe) that the proposal was solid and unobjectionable.
>My claim was not quite this. It was rather that Phoenician can be
>treated as subset of Hebrew,
It *can*. But it shouldn't be. It can be treated as a subset of other
things too. But it shouldn't be.
>and the need to treat it otherwise had not been demonstrated. I
>think Deborah's contribution has now come close to demonstrating
Debbie quotes Powell, as I did. Everything she says I agree with
completely. The need seems to me to be self-evident.
>And proved absolutely nothing thereby, because no one has suggested
>that Phoenician fonts with Latin characters are anything but hacks.
I suggest that Phoenician fonts with Hebrew characters are just as
much hacks as Latin ones are. Though I have lots of the latter and
have yet to see any of the former.
>living users are better than ones long dead.
So much for human history....
-- 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