From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 14:38:53 CDT
Michael Everson wrote:
>> The numerous and visually varied 22-letter semitic writing
>> systems all represent the same 22 abstract characters.
>> The Unicode Standard encodes abstract characters.
>> Ergo, only one set of codepoints is required to encode the
>> 22-letter semitic writing systems.
> Oh, goody. Back to square 1.
To clarify: I was not positing this syllogism as a new argument, only seeking to express
as succinctly as possible the underlying logic of the opposition to the Phoenician
proposal. I don't think this logic is at all unreasonable, any more than I think many of
the arguments in favour of the proposal are unreasonable. This is why I don't think any
decision can be made on the basis of argument about the identity of 'scripts': there are
good arguments for and against different ways of encoding ancient Canaanite writing
systems. Yes, I think most of this debate has been a waste of time, but not because either
side is obviously right and the other wrong.
As stated previously, the only useful question to ask -- and the only sensible target for
those opposed to the proposal -- is whether there is really a 'need' for plain-text
distinction of 'Phoenician' from Hebrew and, presumably, from some other forms of ancient
Near Eastern writing. Patrick has, today, noted the existence of an inscription that
includes both Punic and Neo-Punic forms: is this a distinction that someone might have a
'need' to make in plain-text?
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC firstname.lastname@example.org Currently reading: Typespaces, by Peter Burnhill White Mughals, by William Dalrymple Hebrew manuscripts of the Middle Ages, by Colette Sirat
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 24 2004 - 14:39:31 CDT