An apology (was: Everson-bashing)

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 10:09:36 CDT

  • Next message: Lisa Moore: "Re: Archaic-Greek/Palaeo-Hebrew (was, interleaved ordering; was, Phoenician)"

    I would like to repeat my apology to Michael Everson and to the rest of
    the list. I am sorry that I wrongly blamed him for some past errors made
    by the UTC, when it seems that these were not actually his
    responsibility. I also apologise for not always making it clear that I
    respect Michael's expertise and judgment as a script expert.

    I am repeating this because I realise that my previous apology might
    have been missed because it was at the end of a long posting.

    I have attempted to keep this discussion focused on the issues and away
    from ad hominem matters. But I accept that sometimes, in response to
    those who have misunderstood me as attacking Michael ad hominem, I may
    have stepped across the ad hominem line in what I have written. If so, I
    apologise for this as well. But I should like to remind everyone that I
    did not call Michael "arrogant" on the list, although some subscribers
    have put these words in my mouth.

    However, I remain confused about the facts:

    On 12/05/2004 10:37, wrote:

    > ...
    >>Thanks for the clarification. I accept that I don't know all of the
    >>history, and so I was assuming that what you said was correct, that
    >>Michael's judgments had been accepted on most such issues.
    >They *have* been accepted on most of the very few such issues that have arisen.
     From what others have told me, the only significant such issues that
    have arisen are Coptic disunification and Kurdish K and Q, and the UTC
    did *not* initially accept Michael's judgments on these two. So, John,
    what are some of the very few specific issues on which Michael's
    judgments *have* been accepted? Perhaps this issue can be laid to rest
    if they are identified.

    By the way, Kurdish is not the only orthography which mixes Latin and
    Cyrillic. I have on my desk a sample of a tentative orthography for a
    minority language which includes a word


    Yes, that's Latin b - Cyrillic soft sign - Cyrillic hard sign - Latin b
    - Cyrillic soft sign - Cyrillic hard sign. (Or perhaps the soft sign
    should actually be U+0185.) Fortunately I am in a position to exert some
    influence to tidy this one up, if possible to use only Latin letters.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 13 2004 - 11:32:08 CDT