An apology (was: Everson-bashing)

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
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, jcowan@reutershealth.com 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

    bьъbьъ

    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
    peter@qaya.org (personal)
    peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
    http://www.qaya.org/
    


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