From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 00:03:27 CDT
On 12/05/2004 03:14, Patrick Andries wrote:
> D. Starner a écrit :
>> "Doug Ewell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
>>>> Because each such case has to be judged on its individual merits,
>>>> according to proper justification and user requirements. There can be
>>>> no hard rules like "always split" or "always join".
>>> Nobody, neither Michael nor anyone else, ever advocates such a rule.
>> But that's what Patrick implied when he asked how you support the
>> unification and the Coptic/Greek unification, that such a rule exists.
> Well, yes. But more specifically why was the unification ill-advised
> for Peter Kirk in the case of Coptic and would not be in the case of
> Phoenician. Unless, of course, one justs follows the trend and says
> Coptic unification was ill-avised because it has been disunified.
> Somehow, I feel I should not have asked since the argument often seems
> to be, in the case of neighbouring historical scripts, genealogy and
> user community feeling (as interpreted by the proposers).
> P. A.
I support Coptic disunification on the grounds that it was requested by
the user community. Initially I opposed Phoenician disunification
because there was no evidence of demand for it from users. As such
evidence has now been produced, I now support Phoenician disunification,
according to Michael Everson's proposal. Please note carefully this last
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 13 2004 - 09:06:48 CDT