From: E. Keown (k_isoetc@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu May 06 2004 - 13:30:54 CDT
Elaine Keown --- Tucson, Arizona
Hi,
Peter Kirk wrote:
>The question is, is it a
>separate script, or is it a set of variant glyphs for what should be a
>unified 22 character Semitic script (although currently known as
>Hebrew)? This question of unification or disunification needs to be
>argued carefully.
The set of glyphs in Michael Everson's proposal actually closely resembles sets of glyphs used for at least 3,400-3,600 years. Usage is intermittent, not continuous, but it does spread completely over that time frame in many geographical areas, in several distinct cultures, to the modern period.
They are found in the most ancient period (the one his proposal discusses most), then they are found at the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, where they are called 'Neo-Palaeo-Hebrew, where they occur in at least 4 sets of glyphs. One set is called 'Crypto A,' then there's 'Crypto B,' then there's 'Crypto C.' And there's also the usage he keeps referrring to, the writing of the Tetragrammaton in Neo-Palaeo-Hebrew. And then they are found in various Samaritan sets of glyphs, and also in the cryptic Aramaic alphabet used by the Ottoman chancery until (I presume) 1914.
The logical implication of Everson's work is that part of the Dead Sea Scrolls and all the Samaritan material and all other material of that type, should be encoded in his proposed block.
I think that's ridiculous. As Peter Kirk says, I think it makes far more sense to say that they are variant North Semitic letters........
Elaine
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:26 CDT