From: Peter Constable (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 09:10:19 CDT
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Behalf Of D. Starner
> Again, no, you can't use archaic forms
> of letters in many situations, but that doesn't mean they aren't
> unified with the modern forms of letters.
On what basis would we consider that the modern form of the characters
in question are the square Hebrew reflexes rather than the Greek, Latin,
Cyrillic (or whatever else) reflexes?
The only bases I can think of on which a connection with square Hebrew
could be preferred would be
1) the characters in question have always been most closely associated
with the languages that are most closely associated with square Hebrew
2) the characters in question are structurally / behaviourally very
similar to square Hebrew characters, but not to the characters of other
Item 1, I think we'd agree, is just wrong. Item 2 is probably true. But
is it enough to refer to square Hebrew as "the modern form" of
Phoenician (Old Canaanite, whatever you want to call it)?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT