RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 12:17:58 CDT

  • Next message: E. Keown: "RE: Multiple Directions (was: Re: Coptic/Greek (Re: Phoenician))"

    At 12:13 -0400 2004-05-14, Dean Snyder wrote:
    >Michael Everson wrote at 2:13 PM on Friday, May 14, 2004:
    > >At 08:05 -0400 2004-05-14, Dean Snyder wrote:
    >>> >> Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
    >>> >> when what we do now works very well?
    >>What you do now is transliterate Phoenician text into Hebrew or Latin.
    >Phoenician to Hebrew is not a transliteration;

    Yes, it is, Dean. But I shall not try to convince you any longer.

    >I don't use Latin.

    That's your choice. Do you use Hebrew encodings with Phoenician
    glyphs? I suspect that you do not.

    > >You already do that, since Hebrew and Latin are "competing" encodings.
    >I don't use, or advocate the use of, Latin.

    So what? Many Semiticist scholars do.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 14 2004 - 12:18:34 CDT