Re: Revised Phoenician proposal

From: D. Starner (
Date: Sun Jun 06 2004 - 15:50:17 CDT

  • Next message: Patrick Durusau: "Re: Script variants and compatibility equivalence, was: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?"

    > Scholars of Semitic languages do *not* have a monopoly on the heritage
    > of ancient writing systems. There are other people in the world besides
    > them (a few),

    "The heritage of ancient writing systems." All of a sudden these letters
    are incredibly important (despite the fact you could take every class
    some major universities offer and not hear word one about them), and suddenly
    all these people who don't know anything about Phoenician have a huge vested
    interest in the matter.

    Let's be honest; the only people who matter in the least when discussing
    a script is the people who actually use it. And all evidence presented here
    indicates that scholars of Semitic languages--that is, the people who can
    actually read the stuff written in the script--are, not surprisingly, the
    majority users of Phoenician.

    > and some of them wish to use Phoenician letters distinctly
    > from Square Hebrew, and their desires and needs are *EVERY* *BIT* as
    > important as those of your precious Semiticists.

    No, they aren't. The people who use the script are the most important

    > since the scholars in question demonstrably do
    > NOT need a single encoding: they've been managing okay without one for
    > quite some time.

    Like everyone else in the world. By that reasoning, we shouldn't have
    bothered with Unicode.

    > there will not be a unique encoding in use by Semitic scholars for a
    > *long* time, whether or not Phoenician is ever encoded).

    Just like there isn't for Russian. Does that mean suddenly all right to
    seperate the Russian p and Serbian p?

    Sign-up for Ads Free at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 06 2004 - 15:53:26 CDT