Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?

From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 13:03:01 CDT

  • Next message: D. Starner: "Re: PH as font variant of Hebrew (was RE: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"

    At 13:37 -0400 2004-05-24, jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote:

    >I don't accept that the existing practices are necessarily a controlling
    >precedent.

    In this case, I do. The default template separates scripts (apart
    from the Kana, which are conventionally mixed by everyone who uses
    them). There is no reason to stop doing this now. By the same token,
    Etruscan should not have been interfiled with Latin, nor should
    Carian and Lycian be interfiled with Greek. Or Phoenician.

    >For sufficient reason we can override existing practices. I believe
    >that sufficient reason does exist in this case.

    People who need to override the default template can do so, according
    to the standard.

    > > >Well, if you asked the ancient Phoenicians this question, of course
    > > >they would have said "yes" because the script used in their time for
    > > >Hebrew was very similar to their own script.
    > >
    >> That's why Palaeo-Hebrew and Hebrew are unified.
    >
    >Palaeo-Hebrew and Phoenician, presumably.

    Yes, yes. I am weary of this dance. A slip of the fingers. 

    -- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 24 2004 - 13:07:57 CDT