From: Jony Rosenne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 15:29:54 CDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 7:30 PM
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: RE: Old Hebrew, extra Uniscribe work (Re: Arabic
> encoding model (alas, static!))
> > From: Peter Kirk [mailto:email@example.com]
> > >>NO : it means they must behave the same way and that in this case
> > >>as Phoenician and Old Hebrew are linguistically sometimes
> > >>and Old Hebrew is even written written in Phoenician that this is
> > >useless.
> > >
> > >The fact that old Turkish is written in Arabic while recent Turkish
> > >written in Latin has nothing whatsoever to do with whether
> Arabic and
> > >Latin should be encoded with the same or different characters.
> > This is a false analogy...
> The only analogy is that to say that "Old Hebrew [language] is written
> in [whatever]" implies nothing about the identity of scripts. If you
> want a better analogy, Old Tamil was written in Grantha, but that is
> neither here nor there in deciding whether Grantha should be encoded
> using the same characters as Tamil.
This is the case of the same 22 letters, in the same order, with very
similar names and a well known history. It isn't the case of an old Hebrew
language, these are old Hebrew writings.
I am not trying to ask the UTC to change its decision on Phoenician or to
reopen the subject. The record stands for itself - on the one hand CJK
unification, on the other hand Semitic disunification. But time and again,
as new persons learn about it, the decision will be exposed for what it is
> Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 14:31:29 CDT