From: Ernest Cline (ernestcline@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 21:34:47 CDT
> [Original Message]
> From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
>
> Philippe Verdy scripsit:
>
> > Full collation between Phoenician and Hebrew is not really needed:
> > the texts are part of separate corpus, and the original documents
> > do not mix these scripts in the same words.
>
> Remember that "Phoenician" in this context includes Palaeo-Hebrew, an
> we *have* seen evidence that this script is mixed with Square in the
> same text, though not in the same word.
But the only example shown during this discussion has been the use
of Paleo-Hebrew for the tetragrammaton. It might be an argument to
define variation sequences for Yod, He, and Waw to indicate that they
get special treatment (in this case represented by Paleo-Hebrew glyphs)
but as important as the tetragrammaton is, if that is the only example of
interleaving of Phoenician and Hebrew found in the historical record,
I can't see it justifying interleaving the two scripts. It would be like
arguing
that Kana and Latin needed to be interleaved by default so as to be able
to handle Coca-Cola. :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 21:35:52 CDT