Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?

From: James Kass (
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 08:49:39 CDT

  • Next message: James Kass: "Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"

    Peter Kirk also wrote,

    > But if there are two competing Unicode
    > encodings for the same text, and no defined mappings between them (as
    > both compatibility equivalence and interleaved collation seem to have
    > been ruled out),

    Surely a transliteration table is a mapping in every sense of the word.
    There's only 22 original letters involved. Even allowing for
    final forms of a few of the letters, it'd be an awfully small
    table and so easy to make!

    How hard is it to convert between Urdu (Arabic) and Punjabi
    (Gurmukhi)? How hard is it to convert from Sanskrit text
    in Unicode Devanagari to Sanskrit text in Unicode Bengali?

    > the advantages of going to Unicode are lost.

    Not at all. The advantage of encoding separate scripts separately
    (which is what Unicode does) is that they can all be stored in the
    same plain text documents without mark-up or loss of script identity.

    > Well, it's a lot more complex than this for searches, that's where the
    > basic problem will be.

    Searching for "Yahweh" won't find "Eloahim". And that's just
    Latin text. In the olden days (hearkening once again back to those
    antiquarian days of the century past) searching for "Upper
    Case" wouldn't find "upper case", either. But, things got better.

    You make a little program to generate "ABCDEF" into four different
    scripts (say, Latin Hebrew Phoenician Syriac), then paste the output
    into a Google advanced search window which finds web pages
    containing at least one of the words. Hacks work. Things get better.
    (You just hope what you wanted hadn't been transliterated into Greek
    or wasn't encoded in its original Ugaritic cuneiform or something.)

    > >
    > > And Dean's suggestion that "most people use Hebrew and Phoenician
    > > alike in ASCII clones" is not worth consideration as a reason to
    > > "unify" Hebrew and Phoenician.
    > Why not?

    How about 8-bit ISCII? ( )

          There are manifold advantages in having a common code
          and keyboard for all the Indian scripts.
    <end quote>

    Are there any Syriac fonts using Web Hebrew? Ugaritic Cuneiform
    fonts using Web Hebrew?

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 24 2004 - 08:50:23 CDT