Re: Why Fraktur is irrelevant (was RE: Fraktur Legibility (was Re:Response to Everson Phoenician)

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 16:35:46 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: PH: the core issues (was RE: Palaeo-Hebrew, Phoenician, and Unicode (Phoenician Unicode proposal)"

    On 26/05/2004 13:25, Rick McGowan wrote:

    >Personally speaking, at this juncture, I usually yawn and hit the delete
    >button when I see the word "Phoenician" on this list. The discussion has
    >gone way past any sane argument.
    >However, Peter Kirk asked a question to which I have a response.
    >>... we need to ask a more general question: should the
    >>UTC encode scripts for which there is a (small, in this case)
    >>demand but no technical justification?
    >Do you even have to ask this question? If so, I have to think you haven't
    >been listening at all. There are technical justifications for the encoding,
    >but you are either failing to listen to them, or are refusing to believe
    >that some of the justifications are technical. I will not repeat any
    >arguments here, I've really had enough Phoenician.

    Rick, or anyone, maybe I have simply forgotten some of the issues
    because there has been so much noise. But I can honestly remember only
    one *technical* justification which has been put forward for separate
    encoding, which is the argument from legibility. And several people have
    agreed that this argument is insufficient on its own, although I accept
    that it does have some weight.

    So I have an honest question. Can anyone, please, remind me of any
    technical arguments other than legibility for the separate encoding of

    >It's my personal opinion that yes, UTC *should* encode Phoenician
    >precisely because there is a group of scholars and others who have
    >indicated they desire its encoding and would use it, and there *are*
    >technical justifications which appeal to those Phoenician proponents, ...

    That is not an answer to my question. Let's rephrase it: If, for a
    hypothetical proposed script, there is no technical justification but
    only a user demand, should the UTC encode that script?

    >... even
    >if you won't acknowledge them as such. It's apparent that one reason you
    >won't acknowledge any technical issues is that you disagree on first
    >principles and refuse to acknowledge any other needs or viewpoints than
    >your own.

    Rick, I think you must be confusing me with someone else, perhaps on
    another list as no one on this list, at least on my side of the
    argument, has shown this attitude. Perhaps you just haven't read many of
    my postings. I have clearly set forth *both sides* of the argument
    several times, and have looked for mediating positions. See for example
    my response to Ken Whistler sent about 22 hours ago, from which I quote:

    > Well, perhaps this is a way of finding an acceptable mediating
    > position to put an end to the endless arguments in this thread. It may
    > be a bit messy, like most compromises, but as it is feasible it is
    > worthy of serious consideration. It should overcome the most serious
    > objections of Semitic scholars etc to separate encoding of Phoenician...

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 16:36:33 CDT