From: Mark E. Shoulson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jun 07 2004 - 20:22:55 CDT
Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 06/06/2004 14:38, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>> In other words, if you ask a Semitic scholar a question about
>> representation of Phoenician, you are most likely getting an answer
>> based on a criteria other than the character/glyph model of the
>> Unicode standard.
>> That in no way makes the Semitic scholar's answer wrong, in fact is
>> it right, for their domain. It has no relevance at all for a proposal
>> to encode a script based on the Unicode character/glyph model.
> I agree with you that it is the Semitic scholars' domain to judge
> whether the Semitic abjads share the same characters or not
That's not what Patrick said. He said that the Semiticists' analysis is
correct *for* their domain, i.e. within Semitics, that judgement makes
> I do not mean to imply that the current proposer has not noted "the
> distinction between the terms character and glyph as defined in this
> standard." Dr Kaufman is wrong in suggesting that he does not
> understand glyphs or Unicode. As it seems to me, the proposer has
> rather rejected the considered opinions of Semitic scholars that the
> abjads are made up of the same characters, in favour of his own
> judgment that they are separate abstract characters. This is the
> judgment that I am questioning, on the authority of your clear
> statement, Patrick, of the scholarly view that the abjads share the
> same characters.
But what about the other people who also agreed? Including a professor
of the Practice of Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Epigraphy at
Harvard? Not to mention other non-Semiticist scholars, whose views also
count. It isn't just his own view; we've seen that already. Stop
implying it is; that distorts the facts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 07 2004 - 20:24:36 CDT