Re: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)

From: Ernest Cline (
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 21:34:47 CDT

  • Next message: mleisher: "2004年第十三届莫斯科国际电器展览会 10"

    > [Original Message]
    > From: John Cowan <>
    > 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
    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