From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jul 13 2007 - 02:43:20 CDT
John Hudson wrote:
> > When you say that Hebrew points were written first, I find it difficult
> > realize without the help of a pre-existing reference Arabic text
> > ; in which
> > case, the Hebrew points were still specially laid out according to
> > not the reverse.
> It's the Hebrew Bible, in Hebrew. There is no Arabic language involved in
> this manuscript,
> only the use of the Arabic script to write Hebrew. Of course they didn't
> need a
> pre-existing Arabic reference text: they were Jews writing Hebrew, but
> writing it
> according to the convention of the Judaeo-Arabic language that they spoke.
Apparently you absolutely wanted to interpret my sentence as if I said it
was written in the Arabic language. I did not specify the term "script", but
when replying to your message, I thought it was clear enough that I meant
"Arabic script" everywhere I used "Arabic".
I was not discussing about the language here, only about characters used,
i.e. the script. So you don't need to repeat your past email to which I
Reread what I said: I did not speak about an Arabic-language reference text
but about the Aranbic-script reference text, just to say that I had doubts
that the Hebrew points and marks were drawn first before the Arabic text
(=the sequence of Arabic base characters, not Arabic-language words).
This was really clear from the first paragraph you have quoted.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 13 2007 - 02:46:22 CDT