From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 12:30:27 CDT
At 08:58 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Constable wrote:
> >>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)?
> >Well, one of the two modern forms, Samaritan being the other.
Well. Depends what you mean by "forms". Our taxonomy currently lists
Samaritan, Square Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, and Mandaic as modern (RTL)
forms of the parent Phoenician.
>Ah, so the next protracted debate is going to be whether Samaritan
>should also be encoded using the existing square Hebrew characters.
So far participants on this discussion seem to have stipulated that
Samaritan be encoded as a modern and unique script.
>Since it would appear that the argument for unification of PH with
>Hebrew could also argue for unification of PH with Samaritan, or of
It is proposed that this would not be appropriate.
-- 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