From: James Kass (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 06:01:59 CDT
John Hudson wrote,
> That needn't be an obstacle to the argument going full circle yet again. Hebrew
> Palaeo-Hebrew letters occur side-by-side on some modern Israeli coins also. See
> photography near the bottom of this Typophile discussion:
The bimetallic issue shown in the on-line graphic seems to be
newer than the 1985 Krause that was handy here, but, as you
say, there are other examples. Like the 5 lirot piece from 5723
(1963 CE) made of "coin silver". It commemorates seafaring
and appears to have an ancient Phoenician ship on the face of
the coin which bears the Phoenician inscription. (Or, it might
be an ancient Greek ship, since "Greeks are better sailors".)
(Krause catalogue doesn't cover ancients. Never thought to
look for moderns.)
What could possibly be an obstacle to arguing full circle one
more time? Self restraint?
Did anyone not like my use of the word Phoenician in the paragraph
above? Then, please allow me to rephrase:
It commemorates seafaring and appears to have an ancient
Palaeo-Hebrew ship on the face of the coin which bears the
Should we do The Thread From Gehenna's equivalent of Monty
Python's "Argument Clinic" skit again?
Supporter: I need to store Phoenician script and Hebrew script
in a plain text database using separate script identity in order
to complete a numismatic database of modern Hebrew coin
Opposer: No, you don't.
Supporter: Yes, I do!
Except somebody would probably come up with some kind of
German coin that had Fraktur and Roman mixed inscription.
And then someone else would say that the Fraktur/Roman
inscription wasn't germane because ... and so on.
Self restraint is starting to sound pretty good.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 06:04:54 CDT