Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?

From: Dean Snyder (
Date: Fri May 21 2004 - 14:52:40 CDT

  • Next message: Dean Snyder: "RE: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"

    Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 2:35 PM on Friday, May 21, 2004:

    >Dean Snyder wrote:
    >>Furthermore, this has the advantage of side-
    >>stepping the whole issue of the origins of the Greek alphabet along with
    >>its subsequent Mediterranean script descendants, while not mucking up
    >>Canaanite which is already encoded in Unicode, albeit somewhat
    >>"prematurely", or "misnamed", as Hebrew.
    >Can we live cosmetic issues like the name out of it? OK, so "Hebrew" is
    >really "Jewish Aramaic," and it's ironic that we're working on encoding
    >a Samaritan block distinct from the Hebrew block. Lots of things are
    >badly named, and bad names sometimes stick. But naming issues like this
    >(what do we name this block? That name is a bad choice...) are
    >irrelevant to the discussion. They just make the discussions longer,
    >but don't affect the validity of anything. If it makes you feel better,
    >pretend that the blocks are named things like U+05D0, and so are the

    You're missing my point. I don't really care that it's called Hebrew; but
    I suspect that OTHERS do and that is one motivation (maybe even a
    subconscious one) behind a separate Phoenician proposal.


    Dean A. Snyder

    Assistant Research Scholar
    Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
    Computer Science Department
    Whiting School of Engineering
    218C New Engineering Building
    3400 North Charles Street
    Johns Hopkins University
    Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

    office: 410 516-6850
    cell: 717 817-4897

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 21 2004 - 14:52:20 CDT