RE: Old Hebrew, extra Uniscribe work (Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!))

From: Jony Rosenne (
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 15:29:54 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!)"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From:
    > [] 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 []
    > > >>NO : it means they must behave the same way and that in this case
    > > >>as Phoenician and Old Hebrew are linguistically sometimes
    > unseparable
    > > >>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
    > is
    > > >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