Re: New contribution

From: Christian Cooke (
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 17:41:08 CDT


On 4 May 2004, at 21:27, Patrick Andries wrote:
>> Patrick Andries a écrit :
>>> Christian Cooke a écrit :
>>>> Surely a cipher is by definition "after the event", i.e. there must
>>>> be the parent script before the child. Does it not follow that, by
>>>> John's reasoning, if one is no more than a cipher of the other then
>>>> it is Hebrew that is the cipher and so the only way Phoenician and
>>>> Hebrew can be unified (a suggestion you'll have to assume is
>>>> suitably showered with smileys :-) is for the latter to be
>>>> deprecated and the former encoded as the /real/ parent script?
>>> What is so important about genealogy ?
>> Let me precise this : what is so important whether we encode the
>> father or one of the sons ?

[again eschewing any claim to expertise...]

  On 4 May 2004, at 17:04, John Hudson wrote:
> How do you distinguish those scripts that are rejected as 'ciphers' of
> other scripts from those which you want to encode, if 1:1
> correspondence is not sufficient grounds for unification but visual
> dissimilarity is grounds for disunification?

Leaving aside the fact that the "son" is already encoded, I suppose I'm
asking how a script can predate a script (Hebrew, or Aramaic so I'm
told) it is said to be the cipher of.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT