Date: Thu May 06 2004 - 14:55:30 CDT
Michael Everson scripsit:
> At 11:30 -0700 2004-05-06, E. Keown wrote:
> >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.
> No, Elaine. The implication is that there are two scripts there which
> differ, essentially, from one another. The native users recognized
> this distinction, as do we today.
Michael, first of all, Elaine's argument is a straw man (set up to be
knocked down); second, you are actually in agreement over Hebrew vs.
Elaine is saying that she would *expect* you to unify Samaritan (not
Square Hebrew) with Phoenician, which she considers an over-unification
(and so do you, though I'm not so sure -- a lot of the arguments that
you have made for not unifying Square won't wash with Samaritan). Neither
you, nor she, nor her version of you, wants to unify Phoenician with Square.
-- John Cowan email@example.com "You need a change: try Canada" "You need a change: try China" --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:26 CDT