From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 14:01:08 CDT
At 10:00 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Kirk wrote:
>>>and myself I'm still not convinced the distinction between Greek
>>>and Coptic in bilingual editions is not truly just a font issue.
>>Plain-text searching of Crum's dictionary, for instance, is a
>>perfectly valid requirement, and one which was brought to bear on
>Out of interest, are there any dictionaries e.g. of the Phoenician
>language which use both Phoenician and Hebrew script, with a plain
James Kass presented a non-dictionary text the other day. I
considered it plain text. Others didn't.
>I can quite imagine that there are.
I don't know. Mostly I would expect to see Hebrew or Latin
transliteration in such dictionaries. Encoding Phoenician in a
scholarly context is likely to be more prominent in teaching
students, preparing exams and grammars, etc (same thing has been said
about other scripts which are often transliterated).
>If there are, they would provide a good justification for your
>proposal, helping to supply what is currently missing.
Enshrining "justifications" in the proposal documents really all that
important? It sounds like busywork to me.
-- 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