Re: Interleaved collation of related scripts (was: Phoenician)

From: E. Keown (
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 14:36:13 CDT

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

             Elaine Keown


    > In addition, it's important to always remember that
    > "collation" is a cover term for both sorting *and*
    > searching. Collating Hebrew with "Phoenician" at the
    > first level means that a search using Hebrew
    > letters will find "Phoenician" text as well.

    The truth is that in about 1200 B.C., 'Hebrew' was
    almost the same as 'Moabite' and 'Ammonite' and
    'Amorite.' Probably the differences were parallel to
    those between British English, Australian English,
    Hong Kong English, and American English.

    Maybe 'Phoenician' was a little further away
    linguistically---as far as 'Scottish English'? Or
    possibly 'Indian English' or 'Pakistani English'?

    For that level of difference, interleaving makes
    sense. ---Elaine

    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2'

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 13 2004 - 14:37:50 CDT