From: saqqara (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 10:35:04 CDT
Dean Snyder Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:52 PM
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 10:41 PM on Saturday, May 22, 2004:
> >And not a single Hebrew-reader I spoke to,
> >native or not, could even conceive of Paleo-Hebrew being a font-variant
> >of Hebrew. They found the proposition laughable.
> I'm a Hebrew reader, and I consider it a font change.
> I would like to see the evidence to back your assessment.
> I'm guessing none of your test subjects have read Paleo-Hebrew texts,
> like the Dead Sea scroll ones. If not, how can they make judgements on
> this issue? It would be like testing readers of Roman German who had
> never read Fraktur - they wouldn't recognize it as a font change either
> (which it is, of course, in Unicode).
Evidence. Yes, there is lot to be said for the scientific method.
I showed my 5 year old some Fraktur (lower case only) for the first time
today. He is only just getting to grips with reading simple English words.
And the verdict ...... 'funny and silly' but he could still read the words
back to me. Anecdotal perhaps but Dean, do you want me test the other 29 of
his class at school before we can be rid of this fallacious Fraktur analogy?
Before you ask, no he has not yet attempted any Paleo-Hebrew texts.
I'm genuinely interested in why Phoenician should not be regarded as a
separate script but have yet to read a reasoned response to earlier posts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 24 2004 - 10:31:36 CDT