Re: New contribution

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 11:10:50 CDT

On 04/05/2004 11:23, John Hudson wrote:

> Christian Cooke wrote:
>> Surely a cipher is by definition "after the event", i.e. there must
>> be the parent script before the child. ...

Well, Samaritan script is used as a cipher for English although arguably
the Samaritan script is older than the Latin script. So it's not quite
that simple.

>> ... 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?
> The argument of at least some contributors to this discussion is that
> the "Hebrew' block is misnamed. Even if one accepts that 'Phoenician'
> should be separately encoded, the Hebrew block should have been called
> 'Aramaic' :)

Or that the Hebrew block should have been called West Semitic or
something of the sort, which would unify Phoenician with Hebrew. No
smileys, I'm serious. As I understand it, block names can be changed
although individual character names cannot be. So the block could be
renamed "Hebrew and Canaanite" or something of the sort.

Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

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