Re: Script variants and compatibility equivalence, was: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?

• Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Script variants and compatibility equivalence, was: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"
• In reply to: Peter Kirk: "Script variants and compatibility equivalence, was: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Peter Kirk wrote:

> But I accept that this Coptic to Greek compatibility has a few problems
> because not all characters have mappings. However, this is not a problem
> for Phoenician, because *every* Phoenician character has an unambiguous
> compatibility mapping to an existing Hebrew character.

As I've said before, final forms in Hebrew make this not 100% true, and
I have seen both mappings in use in practice. For example
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A2
shows the text of the Mesha stele beginning
"אנכ. משע. בנ. כמש.. . מלכ. מאב", and I have a book (2 Kings in the
"Olam Hatanach" series) which shows it beginning
"אנך. משע. בן. כמש[ית] . מלך. מאב"

• Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Script variants and compatibility equivalence, was: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"
• Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Script variants and compatibility equivalence, was: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"
• In reply to: Peter Kirk: "Script variants and compatibility equivalence, was: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 23:52:49 CDT