From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 13:28:53 CDT
On 04/05/2004 08:58, 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.
>>
>>
>
>Ah, so the next protracted debate is going to be whether Samaritan
>should also be encoded using the existing square Hebrew characters.
>Since it would appear that the argument for unification of PH with
>Hebrew could also argue for unification of PH with Samaritan, or of all
>three.
>
>
>
>Peter Constable
>
>
>
>
From my point of view, Michael could have made a better case for a
unified Phoenician and Samaritan proposal. But I think he intends a
separate Samaritan proposal. And that I would not oppose, because there
is an easily demonstrable user community of modern Samaritans. Although
I would still want assurances that they don't consider Samaritan script
to be glyph variants of Hebrew script.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT