From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
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
>> ... 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 firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT