Re: Fraktur Legibility (was Re: Response to Everson Phoenician)

From: Mike Ayers (mike.ayers@tumbleweed.com)
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 12:37:18 CDT

  • Next message: jcowan@reutershealth.com: "Re: Palaeo-Hebrew, Phoenician, and Unicode (Phoenician Unicode proposal)"

    > From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]On
    > Behalf Of Dean Snyder
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 8:41 AM

    > We also have to remember that the Siloam inscription test:
    > * was in "handwriting" incised in stone

            Does this mean that the form of the characters in the Siloam
    inscription were different from those typically used in Phoenician and
    Paleo-Hebrew texts?

    > * was in a different orthography than modern Hebrew

            I'm not sure quite what this means. I thought it was agreed that
    the orthographies of Modern Hebrew and Paleo-Hebrew were different...?

    > * using dots to separate words

            This.really.shouldn't.confuse.people.terribly.after.a.few.seconds.

    > * and lacked vowel indicators (matres lectionis), very important
    > contextual clues for reading modern Hebrew

            Doesn't Paleo-Hebrew lack them as well?

            Thanks,

    /|/|ike

    P.S. I think this whole legibility test trip is irrelevant. I'm trying to
    figure out what does and doesn't separate things.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 12:38:01 CDT