From peterkirk@qaya.org Mon Dec 1 06:34:47 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:34:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns3.eukhost.com (ns3.eukhost.com [64.5.60.201]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1BYlQ02432 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 06:34:47 -0500 Received: from [213.162.124.237] (helo=qaya.org) by ns3.eukhost.com with asmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AQmKE-00045I-Nv; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:34:46 +0000 Message-ID: <3FCB274F.2030000@qaya.org> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:34:39 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elaine Keown CC: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol08/Tov2003.html References: <20031130145612.83484.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20031130145612.83484.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ns3.eukhost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - unicode.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - qaya.org X-archive-position: 937 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 30/11/2003 06:56, Elaine Keown wrote: > Elaine Keown > Lexington, KY > >Hi, > >URL in subject line is Web page by the great Israeli >scholar Emanuel Tov (prof emeritus Hebrew University, >Yerushalayim).... > >Tov's page discusses software for various codices of >the Tanach and the Dead Sea scrolls--excerpt below. >Tov says that the Aleppo Codex is (also) now >computerized at Bar Ilan. Peter Kirk explained to me >that someone on this list also has an electronic >Aleppo. > >Elaine > > Thank you, Elaine. It's a shame that Tov has ignored the two online editions of the Hebrew Bible text, both with full cantillation: http://www.anastesontai.com/, which is I think based on L (but the cantillated text crashes my Mozilla); http://www.mechon-mamre.org/, which is I think based on Aleppo, and is the text Elaine refers to above. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From elaine_keown@yahoo.com Mon Dec 8 16:34:16 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:34:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from web80708.mail.yahoo.com (web80708.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.65]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hB8LYGM09047 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:34:16 -0500 Message-ID: <20031208213415.70627.qmail@web80708.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [63.164.145.33] by web80708.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:34:15 PST Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:34:15 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Keown Subject: [hebrew] Qumran Greek To: unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-507456969-1070919255=:70065" X-archive-position: 938 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew --0-507456969-1070919255=:70065 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Id: Content-Disposition: inline Elaine Keown Hi, I include 2 Qumran symbols that are probably Greek. I'm looking for help with the large 'X'. Also, where will the new numbers for the accepted TLG items be posted? Debbie said everything got in, but I don't know where to find their assigned code points. Thanks Elaine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ --0-507456969-1070919255=:70065 Content-Type: image/gif; name="qfkdlin.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: qfkdlin.gif Content-Disposition: inline; filename="qfkdlin.gif" R0lGODlhPAA8APcAALqYh8uce8uylmlTUdOykurMrcWje9KoeciYa9Grg4JS Rm4vNE87RLeJZa52aJGEaopIP7ylj7aIdeXFnc2pfdGjicSbcdi5pNKyi+W6 ksqyiZF3bryWadCkg8ujdsOdisOjlNG0mndlVs2rmsmlhcWpjcOVecOuksqb dM2misqdjG5DPcmlic2pjVhLTMmhhrGCW7yiecmkgd/Clcmhfc2lgcihisyp icabkMmmjcylhcihgcKMbNCum9GxhM2pkcWhhZVpWjMjOcKTb82ljcWggNnB qciojdKdecWMd8moiaCMdc6ohdGticalgU0ZLycWN8mlkaeEbZ9WRLySc8mo hc6hhcaphcmlfMmehkcmOqh3WcipkbyafhYLMsedgc6ogtGpicmdgDYxQ8Si c9CrkMWdhMadfN26m82slcmjjNGojdCuksSlic6ukcaeeFcnMzcaNcihd9uz lcmJWsWZfdCvlsyigc6hfcyhiVkzN8ahiNOWZcylkZlkTMuibrd5X82ujItn V6KSccmmeM6lfcmpgNCtjcuTcr2dcEUjK86thcmplMSmjtqrgcuxoc2si8aa gb+dhryQfcKTf86ldyUFJsmsjX51bMKZd8CegsWhjtCkkMeqmaNpXNqZgcal hSkVLYZgSs+tpdmznMmYedu6ksKbgX86O8yjjMiulty8jDgUKs6ud7OSgMit iFUpK82pl8qnmcSqfUYyNsGdeeSqgNWviMCmiMigkNGplcyikc2egNivjsea esqtkdSukYlYXaliRqyXhseYgLOSbcGYhMKkhc6nlc2gd86sgcWZhiIMMcya f8Kif9SpjtWtjNu4hrCcfsOfhde1j6x4SsurhdSulrRlTbl2T9qtk8CiiMmm lNS3lcGYfcOffb2ngNGmnMiYhFMVIDMHK518YsuehdSwe8ehlV8ZLTgNLjcO HcqWjc+gkMujXtSpiL+AUbeJgMyUgNeng8yahraZd15uciEjO8+NZ9SxoHyM f9G+nNOrkr68rsG3s8CfjiH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAA8ADwAAAj/ACO8OlBq2gE+ VGpdeuHhn7JASfAk27XIyQswKSyQKRSACYFCi7g5KfHBDZcsZLyRcJLFEBk8 TCj8sWCojyNSujqMUBXIxw4maqZlgyDBSYtCQ150YFLJG6FMQ5gYILTmjQcr kXggC7HGDh4U1lrcMWEBTA4KpWIYyOPmjJJAVdw44gcGwSIBBhDsCeCmARwt UlrxQWCB17xKFA5V4eIrTJoUjOqoSRGAw5cUhTr8+VOoRgdNvsr86HBkTyAC z6qkIKDMyixQBsiweAXGlxt4PGCwiiPhAII6NdIwKURJFz9STIrkIxAGS41b SrC8KoXAzJszNmhMG7FIx403ZbpR/8NAwwOTAMpSAWm0qY0xAIy6veBgQlAc LRLm2cDcpJIcLDr48MwdFKxxAB5lYNBODwT0UJcmZ3wjAxUxZFFJK19g0YI2 BABRAxZENPPGD3ncYMYLVwDQiB0SbOFMMHEwIEElychUSjJnvIJBMty0Q8IL KFiggh1gyBPIGmdYEAkYNaxEAwkexLDMHWX4KIcvhlTwChl1GMAECS0QcEIY FJQjiByChMIAABTIgccfkVCShh0/1LLJDr7kQUONwBBCBQ0ylPKGDXlAYgUn ZfCSSSY7gHGIE1hUQgMFTESBwREk3NBHCAI8cgkhAJRAhR7MaDHJDam0YMEX qfRwiwkG5P8CBiH0WEECGwRkEoUakaQAyQ1EMEGICQnIUIcTp5zRxhUJtFBG KmogUwEBkJAAyTU+aEDCHZTgU04cXugBSCVNpIHFHgKsoQMXd4xAhBNr5HHE Mzd4UIEhKFSBQRXWFFLEMTYI4IazdTiTSh4UvABJAmB4kIAPchjSggwnpFKJ H6g0gAkUesCAByS7NCEAMjKY88gNP4AyRDKQdEBBABaI0YEBNjRhhRW1RCKA APyUkEAgR1AQSAV/nHFNN/woU4MOQLDAxQf/dOKBKOkEIQAmA8QTSCG85DHH OwEc0AwiNNyARRFrpPBCFkNM84sSP9CAwBmnYNHHLTJM44MMkIT/wcQLQLRA RAU95MHEKY00oQMW4BzBQxBxPNEMATFoEogyZqQQRhj8WCFPEqAgMwIBFbCg Aw5k3BEIGCRgwUEtZgBROAm7KAEyJHgYA8kzNKCwgyFKMAHJIuaccYIsCFSj BTlBkGIKAUQY0McPYBDeQSoy1JBKClWAUQkhuiySgBVF1GFGLaccU4UdTezw wRdNkPCGAR8wcc0ardTwSyDPEJBCLv/qBAaKoYU4BKETa+DHGgoBiTLcAgP8 aMUabmENPHxhD83IBjYosYZDgCASjTBDEdqgg0qYowbOiMQLuJeIbYwiDyyQ xSG64UAdhMFmhtAAMq5BAT2wwg/eQEAh/95RBjYAoxeOSAIP1sAga+TAB36A Qzo8cY41sMEHNwiEDHSgAwRsAgd7iAIQaLAMXLyCDQnIhIdIsAg86IAXBuCG DU4QBWBEQwTrUMAkAEEBfqiCH/m4hTBQsQU3WIEHvEADFgZQKldQABCASIIV GKEEMajhDETgygkMYYFaTEMDeDABwHZAD0ZEYXp36EEfjoELN0QjCEIQhCs8 IQYBYOAWBMAHLNYBg1V4AhWeuEAlViAEEYSgAQt4wgI8QQllXMEYcshDGBbx AzYUYRNcaEIUJLEJbqQgB1FQBso0wIQ3xOAFVjiHAhRRDlUkohBoEI8pGkCL OEAAHyuARTAJof+HFZCBB9UYgBDgIIoXpKFBaRCAGEjwi/45yxpcYIIOmnCI NCzCHRTYBQ2A4ApncAEJ5xCFIlxhhFrAAxFGMAIaYAAHIbAiHYpghSAm0ABY QAAesHiCKFCxgi18gBTv6EEI7OCEITiDAo2iwRV4RQJdrAEYjMhBCo5AhX+o 4gQnyEI0RBGHeBSACrBYQBIyMAEpKIIZzAhFKJgRhAlsYTewEIIX1BG5IGSi AzS6QQ768Io7fMEXOmjDKf6xhyKwwBxn+wCdwGENN5zgF3mIxgrU4YoCNCAU lkBFByYAgJa6QB/2EEI5JlAMRXgBClAYgxCYYQkI0CANBthGFJQAghD/NMEc R1goLrpgiFk5gQavUEUZ0NGCQ6ADBCfAAw30oAUAFGADofCCC+YwgX0sYQn7 KMAMVqCACRhBBHGAQhw2IAAXMGMBk7DDGUBgLgNkIQGL2IYclqEEJajhEFEA QQ46cQFnmCEVG+1CIkxAA1GIAB0FqIdcFUAHPsxjBhPIQAYaoAg9XMOyWmCG HkhQgHIwgwENWAYoDlqIHaihAy1Im7R+wYY1uIETV6gCP8hgAhZ8oxYxSAQP fMGBBkiiAKZwARS0sIAFoGIKDoAAKuAQrmZYVhGhWIEJZpAIWARBGdy4RgiQ 8bddYMEXKaCAOUjAhC91oF61WEYyPsAIEmii/x/+8AYOmkCFSRghAwqAghfQ CgV1PCEOamXGCjgwh1kwwAsrmMQEwAqBIRziHcBoQRF8UEJD/E4SdfjCB75R ChUsgxKMuIEb2vCGWaTUG0RQBhmoEA14KOIeLnBBhtPKgAEMABPSaIQRfLCC KGOgAImgRWuHoIxCAOESP2AEDX7Ajxpw4RSJqEMdCPGBNvjADYHgxyWc8IET 3AIBmfAAFooxhT+L4AQCKAcDxuACTPzjEfuIhi1sgQ89QGEB+CjAOQ79BAnY 4RgqGEELdnEFFpShEjJoww1q8IIbqCIFt7jfNTihCkZEABcGMIMSWFAM87rA AnMwBSQiAI4TdGMOM/9AAx8WkI4FqMMLoVhAPgyhBy/QYhlzUFcLFCeDV4hF E9zIx05+0IMjZCIHLGjCMXLhg20c4wtpqMAbJuEHRWzAB47YQRjmsAoMAOMC TeDBAiwhhNSKABMPWIYPyuGCQYDiFvOowQ1aEIJ22EAXxigBN4qoBizkAQhk eEEg1AAKHdwBBKqwwAvukIRiBOHAwEiDLFpwjQpAIgXIUIYUXDCAQQxCGhqI hgYukYATdIEQVyiDBW1QhnAcAg9FiMGyZHAHHSyqDjsgQg/SwIkcnAEAJ6AC JShhAioAoA0/qAILLnGHHezhEMoIABZKAI5ZrAEaBOAHBgrRghSsoQVYkIH/ AA6hqTC04BmLSEU3VJGD33biH6n4RQrYcFACrEEGmthDHc5ADApQYRMEwAJv gAAoQAaZsAlRQHcvwA/A8AopkAcJcAMJ8Adm8ArhpwFNMAcEQApGQAohkA/d gAYXMAPUMAfdIACLEAYh0A3vUAg68AzX0AInAAJD4AtsoASagAyH0AJfYABO 4AwvoALHUASqsAgvYA0HAAZVsAM+wAZOYAed8APXsA9IIAyA4Aja4AhIgAR8 gAQIAA908Am2MA/zgAGkgAb8EDKIIA40sA0nYAHNoAaSYAzccAdv8A17YIEJ QAAyQAappgEsAAREMAI5sAaPkALX8ANr0AuAsAKK/7AAUzAFELACqFBkevAE yoQKqOAHgCABiJAA0MAHU+AJHNAFurAHNSAGFsABWYAFAaADThAANNAGbqAG lcAGL6AE3HAEN9AOZfALaeATTAAN0FB1tKAI6mAJlhAKigAFaMUMp+WMrAAB CgABwjBIeiAIDaAJPWAOjTIE9aACctAC6HADizANVXAHLEABZaAMd3ADLLA0 u4ABRPAGvxALITAHkCMEDLBuDMB5DCAEsbZuqOUC17UCf6EFAyAFDdAFgVAH KJAFVPB/H9MGpYACkfAhvKAMOTBRKcANLcAILdMIvkAEjNACr1AOIvAAXRAD 0lAPs1AP5fAA0nAF0oA1gv8wDDOgASvwBFqgCEHgDRZwDFlgAlzSSS2AASlg B4YwBJKwB1aQA3fQCfeVAzagASkQE1lgAKnAD2XQARrwCnZgWxfACVbABWxA DQxIDd2gAb/QDY6QDbQABUKgBeUgAFnwAZ0ACk4ACkkABJ2QA0owOkVwCobw BVxQCNNgDXdgCCUQCEwABIagBjZgB9ywcY9AOvkQCNPABHJgDWEACQTgBoeQ DxdQAPMwBekQXgwgBbUQlZJAAmlgDZMwCWfQAmKwAxVEATVAA9SEBS/wAU4g m00ABCVQAwIACXcABjtAAdfAAoSQAhjQAnvQBMjQCSmQDyFwAyGABkgAAaxQ dgz/UA9zgAFhIAAnYAKlMCze8A3JIClOUAXclwphQD0DZw1F0AwU8AZyoAxl EAg6sANrUAHWJAPepASbkANZ0A6BIBokYAoIgArqgFZx4AAzcA29EAK6wAVq MAmlYACUEAlOEJUfkB13QAJnoJsQmAJ3oAQJkABqYAhHsAuXsAfbgwwkIAYs AAY0IFEowAth4AYfgAEBIKGoFQcDYAzzUAHm0AEpwAJM8AF4wANDUApVcAiH QAE6YAgk4BQvkDlwE3BN0AFswAQ7gAVyUAli4AFgUAge8AUykAKpAAzm0AmR FwJ/AAHgwgy08AA7sAMoEADXoguXQAOlkAhUMAS1wAS//8AJHZAHdwAJeRAA SoAEvCkDhPB3FuALYNABDEMDfSADVVABN8AI4mAGNvBEa9Cpz1AMeiAE7LYE 4sQJcrcGa/AMJ3AJRfkCxecEd/ACL4AMhgAoKNABhmAABlAHCNAGYvAGH0AC XLALOaAC4XAENhAFXPALN4AHTuALFgComXAGMfAAGyANx9AJEcAFPZAC73AH AVABbWAInJAKyYAADfAGB5AMfyArchAJFOAMHyBpNmACZnAEQBALTiADLGAG BzANMiAD/yAAJWADh6A2VGAG71AHLCADh0AAD5MHhFAIVlAJSPAOeKACbeAE 5mAGKJAJkxAJP5AKZ5ADRNACaf+gBK9gDm1QA5i6A7gAnFWAByWgBCggCSYA BLLAD0egQh2QBTQQAAyjBGFQBlFVUSZwCipAAkRABPGiCRYhDmdgBpTwAe2g BnjQrDRABDKjBAaABTZQBUewldPwASxgAzbwBsZQC3KgA8lAAzsQAHJwCmDg BtegTSlAAjigC9CwC12wDGqgL3eABx1wBSTQDGJwBmDQBUPQNZVQCohQAyoQ AGdAAiVQBFygCWqQBaUABJpAAlVgDIRAAjJgCObgC12AAwYbBSRAAD+ABC9Q BMkgBuZwAFawUGrABO94AxXACGrgCwFgDZdLBS/QAySQB+IgoPJAAVgAKRZi qHKQCW//4AQ3wA/r8gEpsAvEsAPowAhgkAWEUDQtKwMoIAZS+QPmUAWykArC e7jb4ASQ8AKMEAbEkAmp8AhNcAfOUAQ2cAdhEAgwFAthcAVmUAW/QLfxpwyS AYt3kAo/kAJyoIrOQA9tMKMvYA7ooAMwxAt7cAdy8AbNsAiU6wtAwAkJMAQm oLwHEAA8oHjbKg+5oAI9MB6/QASXsLPQawAmkAVVcAaQkQqN8AU5sAm7EAW5 YA0CmgLmYABf8A5YkL7mYAdlkAedEAWZQAAdAAiTYAxDxQtD4AkSQA08IInx cAtg0ACAEAAEECbdwAOe4ABHkALdtwzcIwOFsAyVqwOgkAlY/7A9v4C6uTC3 H5AHsWAHNwACbrCFGCMB07AG1wAPfgCJ1FAM4/AE8TADyAQBgPACvTAHjgAB 5IAKYnADHWAWHuwLcvAeJWMDvmAMXNABfQAEF5QJhiCAhpACSgAKbSAMEBBW VGAFKdALUzAOzPAEn3ACipAOH9AEEKAFYYUKEDAFEmoJK0ACYVAFYpAHaoA4 edAHxkAJRWAOb+AMOhAAzVALvmArvLCwasC8ndAJC+CIcCAB6JAKE1AO0cUK W4AGCvAEIFBlQqCMykgOluAF5BAM0DCjN/BpToAMkMACycABFkCdLQAku4AD NGAO7fAMOQBOI5ACjeAGrPAEUAALEv/gBjVgClsAZaEAB9igBwwwAhxAC9EI c6k1BsygAAgwC+ZgCEUwCVUQBVv0AQ4YDmugAimABCrACURgDbyQINaSC22A Cx/AACLgUltACgTAA3DQdiKwPKywASVla4MgAmoyCBHwAELwBIDwDD8gA1Gw CV8AAqL0CGVQA/TwBohADGSwA03ABi1wBARaOp1gA5LwD8OwCiLgBajADqQg COQwWglA14rgCddwDhwwCxNABrQgChPwZF4QDMwmAx+wC2KgApngDGhQAShg AN9ABnswEkm5CZvgBCqADFZQBiRQcvlQVnGwDhBQBwpgKhGmbo/IDiGQALqA BhwAC8EwBxcskNOWsADCQwNi8NtmsA0pwA42YAUgsMKPkAZAcATt2QaEsAM/ QAFW8DbIEBAAOw== --0-507456969-1070919255=:70065 Content-Type: image/gif; name="qxline.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: qxline.gif Content-Disposition: inline; filename="qxline.gif" R0lGODlhRgBSAPcAALeEOs2xhMqkY8Wkc8qpaqmESVQtJsmla8GWU8qxerqM S8KdasSoc8qsfb2aUrSKTLyhaphaNotWNqmHUrqMUsGVWpdzRsSqfMmiXpdp RsWgZcWpbMupZbqLQcOaS8GdYYVVLL2mdLOMUXc3JLyUYcahYcKUTcGZWbWJ RWM3J7KDQsKdXKRqNzUNIIdJKsmlcsWeXZVWLcWdYcGZVXpJK8albsKcWL2Z XbKESsGYXcKeZsamadG2eXdKN2cxIYZhONOybMOccqp8QsGdVYhcRL2bbL2W VsShVMWdWbSRXMWhacywaYY8LMKgYXpXOcWhXbyQQsCZYsahbsGhacipcL6V WYZLNax+PMWeZsekZlEjILJ9RL6ZWMOkd76VUbF8O72aYb6RUbWQVJtsPMKi bksTHcmfW8CNR0IdI72aZcGYUMGhZMGhXr2ec5x1OrWNWrOPTMukVMidYrmR UcKURb6dZcakYmQqJM+tZ6h9VcipdcibVZt2UMWaWb6TVLuRVbyZTMGWYsGa Zo5nQ6F1Q72XXp1jMtGvdMahWL6VTMaeVbmRTcKlbaNyO8SYVr6dYLiUWbmW VMWkXsSZYZxqNb6WR2xBJ6FrQqNxMsCmaqJ6Q72RSb6RTraTYsKgWa18Sr+c XapxO8KdUMiucmM5MZZeK5RkNcisdcmqWbqTUrKLYJFgPa17M5FLK7GGUbiR WLyRWb6cV8SaXbuNWa2SYruVXrmVTriPSbmYXaVnLrqZYMenZK2QWG5GM6F+ TXhRMbqHTZliO5NrP3YuJ8ines2ud8WYT6p0QreaWsWcU7SYYbmHQc6ub8SZ Q8yqcIFXTY9rNbqRXpNPM3tAI8OjZalzNryWar+TXbmcYcGvfLaZVrmeZbqZ Zr2hXKuPY6d4PMqga8SgTWQdHsGPVbqUSqZ5MrmgYI1fMMObZMelWlsUH8mZ RnM8Lc2odcOmYbGZaLWFWcmnXqBgPta1YryXWIdhUMaXSNOmXolAI8iVQ8WW V76XQceXXp5wRn5dPMKYPiH5BAAAAAAALAAAAABGAFIAAAj/ABdMmtSkwp8q MvRtGTEIQQdOYlBw0XBtxq1Je0wksrHHg40ZMk5Eihbl2iQsk0AtUIMgERQx qWC9wvXGlisSYPw00ZNumaFzMfANc5FLmrRJXmY08ZIoUR9gI1qk+LSO061b ixDscQAAR45rTWRgkVXrGr8VJ/iNO7OoAoVbsCiQ6PTHWp0BXSCh2Ctm6ZAB jCgYWhVB2jB2n1iMCKOig5dCH2zACNaiBZoMlTrcQmACAB0Eyx5QeCPLBjhQ Jhw5SkQHWIc/fijMokDhTCow9E44kAXBFpwOOHhZA2NDAwNBoUCUMoSPnbId IlR8g6NGQSdbZ6xoQaNl1RlIOTCc//DiCFSiE7aWITCGwQw6LDfAhAH2R1AU 2WdmxVITjUudKVHAIhoKtySxlwMaZMNAATGcw9wdeegQhQOxAJLIJtE4sAUT PdxRhjCcmFDCJqmAkswJJkSRhQJzrKFBDtGAsYIMFdwwSR+B+IEDMCToMg4w qXABQR2pAPAFCsvMERo6DJyyxifnlBLBCD74UogCTWRxQgVqfIBFGIR8w44B vngAxQPf4FDCDFXcUkEJFSDQRwk25DCJHIGgEwQ6f1zDiQKAdmCdAlC8kgQJ ywihAgq1zJEKIwdA4EA5pcQgzQgQNhCNI31QowsguoAhAgIKSGCKGFUIOgcM MKhBARTXvP9CAT+dHqCEFAugU4EfsBgRiAn6+KEABbqQcIsYtVAQzS0qfMEK BR088MEUZNwgxDmm4iMOHzxsM0shieDSDQIUiECBAhmc84AYt4Bigw2voBCG CdfAosAZm5yghCMUpBJFm8BE00aOD/ixQg5+LEIPOmoYEQkcy7DyhxEO3NDF KV58I0EMlMQgDhFk1FDLJHTcogYnUTgCAxI0aKGJPos4sEkHrhBIDhScjJOI F7LIYcwfr4wzzg2BVCBIH5ws4ogft8xBQSQk3JbEA58AMMcNxuTQBDUV4DCG NMG0oo4/SiwQTw4AKCALLODAcA0FVpBSjQrLcIIAFB1o5sUisNj/iUUF6GDw Qg4dhKFGDrIJwkUVOYSBVQ4zwBEJPXA8oAIAtPkxyQ46FCLCGDHII83YDAyA xCoG8KGHDMAcowIUi6D5CQWBHNDECZv8uQwki5yBgAd9IAGOGQrM0lYtOQRR SBWc+GFDMpMIawQo9EDyhQqdJJHKIxsw8ggc/QQjTyviPMOIFCxoYYAmSOzB ggSQPKFCBnlcc40iXuPQzCbLACCGAovIEhb+UDQF/MEEVegDDPhEgT/AogpN iIIICpEGIyhgEyq4ghh0gYsmKYEMb+DDGBrhsXqQYQouIIUm8nEGL3ziElsA BitosIpF2OMLPtBCCijBLDiEIRUr0IAi/yrQhxkYwQ8VqBGgZjEsw6ksEJ5g gywU8AAcfCIUCihCGy5ABipQYRGEaEQ1IqCOZ+hhAOy4Aw7MAIwbuIIU7LAC JSyxPhO4oDIt0AIl+seW3EFhHBU4AReUgI6lGaEDAGDFFR5ADkeAYQEVyAEY uFCkamDiAVEAQx2wMIAL/KEfYxCCIcpHBgb4wAD9SEYwiCABLfhgFSowRRkM cIlS9IIUlfkBAJZxDTEUbhMKqAQU5hALTyxDBX44wThQoIJUVE8DWHAEAmxg kGbhIAnooAI8rEAIbjzAFCM0xB3qUQcymEIYE1BEAUAAAhrQYAvJ+MQdWlAP PyAhFT5oAREAMP8OR+DgARU4kQ3ooIDdUOALt/DCB06QChg4oBYr4MINvDCH CsxiL6/Q5AYuMQI3NAEFY6BEKCJwBz6M4gPnIMUvboAHT6ggBQYgBALe0AMa qKIJObhHDFpgBX2gAxR/UMANFLGAIvQhER5AxyTyBgWfGgEGJbCGIP7ADVxA 4gZ/QIEi6UEMEHZCDy/4xCqCwYIYDGMVW6hDPwxAClUQgBmhKAMaCoCHAvzC DdQQBNso0wtgREEJGqBDIhCBAEfMYAY2OEF0HtAWHaikBDKQgR+uigRdiGEC BShAIYJQBDtsAB7yMIUpWFCK5rSiFfBwhCW0IAxjwMAQWujFAzQghH7/rEEK cpgEBnbqDxWoiQBHMEYYLjSDHDjkDB1wnhpkAYop1EEJoOCCIFYQBi+g4ApX yGgV1rALGISiFeC8hCGYYAVDtGICZsBECqDhgTqIYAKuiEEG6EGNLGBBAyWA gRt+oQocHMMIO+AABvqQDDWoYQgO8AI/PJADGSBAFhqQASjSAIpNzMABkZjD LT4hBGssoBBdYMABnAQHU0iAObA0xBuaIIlX4MAWujgCHkrAAkLY4AUD0IEg KkAGMJRABw94gAPo0dAaCGAPM8DFFJDQkkh4AQECwIAaFuEFQdjgBnUQgytu QQEh5IEbKMDBDWqQAB5goxESkAYTVoEDFojB/w67UIQaTlAHRcRGAbD4wAsO kIMcOEIKMOjDCRBAAhuwoQpysAMeBMABM8ghDoqIwzowAQI+yCIWRjjBB26g gw8sQgSRuIYKXPEHViwjCi9whh4gUABKlMIFvyChEApRgumJJRmcSZI+igMK YPghCAQYwh8SMQ5ZxCMecUiEMfqQCjT3Iw8UCIU4LKMJAcBgBqlYxAfqkIM0 /CEPrjACBR6gC2oYZweZ0MY3mMOOCbRBw7EYwnhyYAYb0GMTr7hGFRigg1eE AQF2OAIFloEsFlgBBOwgRQq2UxnuaKHhbsBAFF7RCTB0+wOC6IAQttABdOCF EWS4QAPa4A0LTGkEIv/YgAMQEAlFPMEISv1ADhbhhw/IQgr2RUI0uHEDWOAA Flt4OB4bboleWEKlveiFL56gAR1QIAolUEMaVvCHRbztFUEIQhvI0IUGOKMO vsCEPIQiBE+Y4AMIiGJ0bYCIWJBHDnLAghwGMIAF/OEht6ADJdCAhjto4RcZ WAUh2IAKW2xiH1BgQzw4JaNAkOEDRYhEKkQTBiMsQK9p2EADEvAOEXzjEi5Q xyBKgIB1qOHJklUZLPzwihzoYxJqmEQU+jCJ3J3BD0KwBB9swQsq4IEDcTjC E5JRCTokQwBb4sIUdrDpR3ABEJFYRAdwtgAyvEIHMhhAAjLxgHKwoBVl8Af/ Es7wGRhwoQl7WIENjHEGBRQCCVKQxAcCAQt+1IITKBBBDmzBgSX8Ph4E8ARx sQhz8AFNsBRe0AQ1oASClgi6cAPFkgqbsAi10AaMwABr0AUBEAITgAkswATq kAEEoA9D0AQCgASFsAJTQA0yUAUKMC95AgMnYAMyYAxzoACcUAPMgAG7gAgY YAfmZl0OYA0y8ASDVgE2wHVSEAR18AFcsAivcAuAYgTUwAbWoEVFoAwT4AaN QD4WQACPMASyIGjX8AfvsgLQMn0PkAMnwA1ZkAUHIwg5gAXtoQFxgAhxAAND UAk20AQLgFurgQVSUANr8AFSYAd9sAkPAAmQMAvA/7AAo7AhVtAPYIAMmjAG 3+AxfNANUYAIJgAFlQAKDkAOm2ACCtABVRAIk/ABKxAIZtAHYDAFUQMKiLAH GpAFRoYBCNAWNmAGdcAFfYAIC1hBfjAAU5AGaVAIYGAEy/AGC4gCq5ABE6AH aeALY/B9d2ABJTAKGDAEM3AEMoAEF2KKKJAKyUAHK2ACCCAHslAjwEABSlAC ikAFzKABT6AIolAJt+AIT1ADVRAFjDAAJBAG+nACC0A9oFAF3DAHKFAEWUcG o1AMCdAAnuAKHeMC0xADhqAK6LACB7AHXmACxnAClbAMKOAHxkAHfdAHWHAA gHQGZ3ACBMAB6UAAeNAeMP/gDLuQDJJQAhrgB3WwBiXwAX/ABZ7QBFXgB8z0 BwQ0AKBAAjpYDAywfXDAAhHABBlAAa0wDDBgD5fQCC63AlmgBskECyQQWY1G CdDgM5PgDDowASIADgcgABoAA7g1lw7wKjfAjitQCFHQBH5wA0NgC+RQCXMA BmRwCyjwAcUQAC9ADCGgDJnIBHnAA4FQCgIQClpACjIABMZwCeeAAyoAAqoA j0BQDVrgBE+AAFUAD1tgCkLAAbtADSXwBB+gA1KgBCbARBqEBX4wA3agAeQw BHagA5lADdwACW1QCNvjDA2QCVNgDrxwCWq2ChCwfXIwDXm0ChQAAnK1Ci6Q Aq7/cAx5cAwPdw4rgAgo4AI0oAmgcAoGKAUysIAfoAFqcAM2oAK30AQrkAog toA6UARdwAWQEAmBsAADcApU0AAhwAC4UAAZcJVMwAsMkA0mMA1oYABacAfz FFM/cQulMALb8Qu3sAMEsAynNAgCkAUyUAJSIAs1UAePUAivIAhpIAacQA1p 4DQMsANNAAM6IAYAcAMf8AY4kFEEQAWncAGM4HmmgA/T4ApdMAB1oALncA4Y qqGo5AGbQAE0MAK/UADuEAcjWQ3TAA1w4AiIIAMw8ALocKAwcHlBQAaRMAND QEmFIAXugA61EAYPEAkLwAkadgUOQADF4EUhgA394GqU/3kBo0AGS+B/IJCa k+oEJuABW0AKPeAJ8wAE4fAPCuACwpAOZqAURVABBggKCOAFUkAAOKYGiQAK GgABa0AGTVAH2AAJacAFiBQG0bCYYCUFgtAGcGAFLhCiGbABmSAFhzAP5tkL 8VAOLdADzdAMX2AJEvAAwSABVmAB3ckHeKAISFACb/gBO6AB4xAGRdMJ0ZAI N7ALO7AB6aAByYiYZBAGKPAF14MCM7AATaABddAbW+kCw1APF8AAJzCad/AL 2DAP5RBbc7AEkEBHNDAN6vMDieAADgAKT2CC4MAPeYIEOUBNoJBZqRCPO6AH AqADfvAHD6AMhaAGc3A92EANB/+wAztABVMAAeZwCUxAsETQAKewBXdgAIOw BswABCpgAOuDB1VAR4MwAbzACw9QBQK2A3bwBI6GAH4QCAggCEpADF1QB0lQ CFjwASoBClEABQ6ADbEQBVFgBDgAB2SgB0qwCxtAADvAANuwboYwDESgB+1w DL0wAVRAACegBqywHcIQD6zgA4OQCaMwCrvgBVwwAzBwuE8wBDoQYTuGDgeQ mwfwAmvAAStwC2mgDfQAChDAALIQBW2gVQDgAZ7gBVNAAFmwCxfAgZ9wDOLQ C3WwC3PQDe5QAiowDSlwBxnqBnHACiDAC8WAB3GwAn5QBYVADzciA7KwAAdg B0XAmtT/YH7UUAOM0ARTMAUDIAcwsAPp8AQOYAS48AUsgAlfsAURoArF8AJ4 uw0PUADS5hxpQA1koA2xAAX5hAa/MAEekAjhIAnUoAQccASwEAsasAEr4AjN sAe2UgMyMAkwMAVSQAbY8AFkcAAIsAAMMAUlwAEHcCSKEAmTtAwu4APDMA1J kADFUAIFwAtXUABfMAyk8A4NAAOeEAt2wAFwAA0WoAxL4AizkAOHgAcwIAdD EAnL4AEwYAw6EA+4GbpVIAtZYLMa0AT8AA5ZMAT0oAQ6gAOr0AM+4AQi4AWg sA/LEAE15QvE0AA8cAxWwAeaIARCMAI9AAHFgAE5sAM1sAH9/zcKQCAAHbAo SjCWJ2AHOfCCfmALGnAAWYAEikANKpLItjIA4HDJsTADHnAGGGoZaNALYgAD VyABfJAHqnAKxHAKAQAMjcALOPANijEG7kCRfXBs1OAJJVACArALkYACCqAL 5SuDKwADGlADS6AEssBcWUAMxIBjVOAMG/ACZBALhWAHGBAO5pmhTNsDqsAD 4+ADaEAKeSCVDRAACRACifoJETAMY5AIDFCbkoAB1PAEJ+gAMyAKVTAHtvAI GMAGCKADtPkCSlADESYF8VwMArCAPYoEbCAJAzCIp+ALbDUIP+AGEuAC9psC /gANKJAD8XwKDZANF9ANX2AF7GAKKP+QDbajfh+ACPFQAskwA/ZgAl5ADnNw ArqxAkoQD9EgAZ+AB/HwAvHcDoJDDFjA0BlNDd2gCztwBSkAAnCwBmJACmjA DtNgAfHQDJzgAFRQDDWw1gqyBZfSD7ywBIqgsbS7A1PAAFSgB6ewA3+TCpKh BpWADoegCj7AB4egB8QgcgMgC6fgDLeiB4xQq48ABjDQDZh1BY/gCb+QoSBA DlkwA2qABHncAO3ACC4tBFPiC9nQBagACjfgAO6QtaCAAQRwCgwgA17QAaLQ BKt6DTJACDRAC/mL2A2wACswAFSgBNS8AG0gCA8AB3PwBAQQD4OJCpfAd04Q DhWQCregA/H/nACnwAghQAJXEAwjwAcN0ACjEA824A6eEA7J4AU2gAVRkAOg EDs7sAsrkAjfcAU08IWrMwAB0A7gIAUbjQg2kAi3uAXVcAupsHIa4Am3sAza aQAWEAeV8AddMJHy3AAH+wahIA/4nAWuygEbkAV1KQkr8K+OwLag8AofMANZ QC659wtJ0A7GXAwE0Ko1cABEXAenUAOdIAJ+EAUzsAlRAAQ4MAKk4A8/YAFb EAZkEADpHQDZfLAiIHaASwy3TQAbsB8ygAiesAJ2YAZDcAC7QAGdwABScAI1 UAg08AsiMJcC4NAHewDokANK0AS1TA0CoAa2EGagwAERkALvAARu/2AAPkAD E+AM7dCYNbADjLANSUAILAC4jqoG6ZAFH+AJB1ACK7AGORAFKzCTXDDlSgAJ UlACR5cDxUAMzpBjF5MFm3ALUhDNVFACWEANa7AGO1ACEcAOvlBme8d3g0AA VB4AjCAAp5AJJNAP4zUIpYQIbHCbsrkLQJgMSOCNQjmfzrBZ8UADKfAKh8Dl dbcASoAFC/BcGvAIvI6fa+B7D0ADyboDM+Dfm1kAjjAAO8AMNWADEJAJtfAN wYDpDYABnuAAxCwJQ7ACZCAABHAAMjAFNgBlApAM9CAAINADUWAGJ9EFbYAF OfABifwBjkAOUYC1nkANVPAJElAAdRBidf9QhUIAS4kwCTLwAgFQAm0AAWnw CX/bAxeQAM5QAuZ2ADXAoieQDHueBc5AD9iwAWXTBEVACf2wB3RQbGRQAvog A2aQBY+QK5z7AQfAAyswCDQwBmqgA3etB1MpCb6VBkGQBmTQAMVwAdlQAzgQ 9BAQADCA7TvwexH+AekgAx+ABFjAAFtX7SeAAjEgDLeQVGmwAGgnCHg+A5JA BRvwz5xACBYr7dRQB7VABjrABSuAALfwXJv2AXrg4S7tCixwB6SggXEgYCQu AGAgCioMA2tAD2lABW0OALcwBDiUmuTgDC8gCOgwBJHsCKkQD6ewAXoABMEg Vz+wAjgLAysQC5X/YAs0WANdwAhKUAEaoAcHYNqnEAa58LuMEAAcAA5I8AFZ gAfhKgtHgAQrsAklsM2TABCs5tT4oqUFGmiHXmB4AkGPMw1YlAyQhAfHHS3Q JDlrwiVRnSk2NET5AKNOnTXJNNRgwyhbMUgR7mQgEwDFqn7plsB4ZeMDEi+c EqErdkqJh3Ql1PRq0YLIIQ1DbDRhRIVKjRIEUCm4Y8AXgRoldTDa8UiqA3pg wF2DZedFlxoMsm3YglFYkwCYDDghgEHaL2126EARpcDFoAEXdsEB06RfL1LC OAjwZKeE1QMDslBpwvRHAmYfYtnQMaWEHy70jNQRNCDIrBejGFAZBcEW/4s7 ZUCYCQDA0o95W6at+vTJ0Bh0KrSkqHVITSk+Nz4V8NWokJ5TVBjo0UOm3a5R 6HxYcgCkSZ0BO8As0LHiUQ4EfhCga/cW+wAIYiAdG1bmFyA9UADhFy+8iAEE SmjQwpJItrDkF0iAwSSFHjTIopEeiEiCAWoEcGaDEDbIYogmdhEiCSAE0EEQ JZrIooQnQFGjkB2uOUMGYhpogDtixECBnlv68yeWBibQhIYfHMDEEhAMQOMH DhKBxhtgJDgnBUvI8cMNC2iB4REYkDiAjNlqgGEFD8KJBwkHhkgEkh2cgeGG bVLRwRMuYEFgii4C4C6Abq6oxQgmyljllABiQf/BDTeoEWUCN1IwgBcO3Lms ABBM8QGNadhxhRkeOJBlhSbIaIKAXajZIQtEZphBFGpgUGMOHQ6ww50mYgGF nEggEaGIC3TUI4AExHhFjUKt2EGPJ8SYYA4l4sGjEksGycQMGHjAgxIfhIHG AC16aOOQYg4wAxEBdijBmXgqC4ucWJ44YANPVrADAxFQuOEEG2Qx4g8KFmiH Cj3aSaCBEBgYpz8i3lgjFlEeOGcVNry4EhpGsMjhAVdS0CIPD3xxg5diqGjg ABtaGsUZKnaIJx4M2DjCAS8kGYAAPcBypYA17IDhhA46SGQFLA4ghphiEsgm gD6GMaAASOpgxIxqDDD/4A1MfHACEgKgAIGGAS3YYBdNcFggAGcSIOAJNiQ5 hQM2EEFihyk2IEAWBFagBhECsECCC09KOKGKQPyIBgwK3sDiZCouGCUBM5hg 5xUpyHhhBg+uLMABX5Ah4IArztGEll3m4YGcc0xZJu1iIHLEi0x2WWEZP06x tIYDTtnBhiM+WEADJdAJpIoqagGFjCgeEAGRBpypIZtTEniACQmU0UENRqhZ woEC6liCgEMIsMMWNpYYpYQrKEnBHxEqAedoMnQwwYQmJNEnkm7WfmQKAopZ W5ISgIEMNTBCLTYwg0LYYAYkUAAsGEAsHjRgZSqYxg+woQE2dIERG1jDA3Cx /4tdHEAAdpCWKCjBDicZgA+7IAAV3qIDGyhhDzJ4ARYGkIkP1EAPDIiHHQI3 QAGA4gM5IAMZtsGeExSiCmQ4RRSKkLSEAcMKg3hEGy4AgyYswQ+l8MUuJJEJ alAjC1m4RSn88YMfbM4YM1DCwcwkBWow4gJSkAIJBQAqPJwpCxpYgBw8AIo1 pGwFK5CFGYwWACVcwgqqCAD0jBCDczgAAlP4ABk0AIxzFGAHdoBA4J5Qhx2s YQqO2MQaqJEKMeiBB86QwR4UcYQnMOACA8BACWpAgAQcggowSIcn+rCCJ8jC BqJIhhlmoA9+YKEGlVtAHsSwtGIkIgYSqIMzGLCGNf/cAhkloEYTPAGKWGQB BplggDNksYlNbMAZNnBADZYQBwSEQQng2MMUXiAFJXygBBy4JQGygAEqEMAZ WJBBCC2kAVk4QgoEAEcDAhCAQyQgARv4BD5WkQUZwCMT6PjGBE6Bhw94YgiS EAAiNvCEMyQCEHswgyRW4ABQUCEOZ0CAEqjATRucoAYQ0AEbBCGDA+iBGew6 wQpQEY8m2BQGCkhDAGqQBWIQCwhyqcExWtFFYLQCP5SwhC+WQI0jDAEDiNgD BipBGEkgQhRuSgQoDlAJTuwBCTmEywFwR4ZVscGmBBCADeZQh13ooAmyKAEC VECODzCgBhg4QAKWEIJsOOP/E63IwyhqoAoMwMMSBpgAHjQwFWrsYgYdgMMQ uiGJcAzhCGrwhADWJoUa2AEUMGjDAK6ShdhuYAAHeEFcGFAVGDjAAcNMxh+g sIkB7EgPDSjG4zYgAhesogkcCEA8fKEFUniDAzDwwAzisQcHACIWJWKEBjTg iTXsQBRIwEMNqLCLdIjChqe4ALA0QIYLkGGD2bEDFmYgEhlMwYtGsMEBHhqA UTBDaRuoQASsoAzqOmMC5/AHIUSRBVfJwBg62AEMlHCALHAAD+kwBgb2UQkY fHEHNYhHCQaQgABsQKjAc+0G4rEALAThERCQwgba4AkMNCEZNXioM/BwiFFc gAElCJAHEyjVgIAAADs= --0-507456969-1070919255=:70065-- From elaine_keown@yahoo.com Tue Dec 9 21:03:46 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:03:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from web80710.mail.yahoo.com (web80710.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.67]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBA23kM20753 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:03:46 -0500 Message-ID: <20031210020345.44411.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.76.153.207] by web80710.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 18:03:45 PST Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:03:45 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Keown Subject: [hebrew] Re: Qumran Greek To: Michael Everson , unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 939 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Elaine in central Texas Hi, > I would guess that the first of your symbols, if > Greek, is a PARAGRAPHOS or a FORKED PARAGRAPHOS. > It's also used in Coptic. Yes, both of those seem to be at Qumran. In Coptic, do you know what period of time they are in? > The X looks like a CHI of course. Even though it's sort of curvy and oversized?--though of course you can't tell the size from this. I had been assuming that it was something else, since Emanuel Tov didn't name it as such and he mostly did Septuagint....Elaine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ From elaine_keown@yahoo.com Thu Dec 11 15:28:44 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:28:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from web80709.mail.yahoo.com (web80709.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.66]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBBKShl29097 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:28:43 -0500 Message-ID: <20031211202842.72125.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.76.153.207] by web80709.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:28:42 PST Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:28:42 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Keown Subject: [hebrew] Qumran scribal, again: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/dss/marks/review.html To: hebrew@unicode.org, unicode@unicode.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 940 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Elaine Keown central Texas Hi, I'm sending along the URL of a fascinating article that Ken Penner brought to my attention. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/dss/marks/review.html Again, I'm still concerned about the overlap between Qumran and Greek, Qumran and Coptic, and (possibly) Qumran and hieratic/demotic. Is there anyone on the Unicode list now who knows Egyptian demotic or hieratic? Aramaic is written in both of those scripts, in addition to hieroglyphics. Elaine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ From elaine_keown@yahoo.com Mon Dec 15 10:32:52 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:32:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from web80704.mail.yahoo.com (web80704.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.61]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBFFWqc24163 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:32:52 -0500 Message-ID: <20031215153251.43326.qmail@web80704.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.83.206.143] by web80704.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:32:51 PST Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:32:51 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Keown Subject: [hebrew] Alphabetic Aramaic+ unification: one remark To: hebrew@unicode.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 941 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Elaine Keown Austin, TX Hi, I've been working some on "Alphabetic Aramaic Unification." Unicode's UTR#3--superseded by the Roadmap--suggest fracturing alphabetic Aramaic into several different blocks. Here is a view on the script of the Dead Sea Scrolls, at least (Orion Web): "In what languages were the scrolls written ? The majority of the scrolls were written in the Hebrew Language (approximately 90-95%) with Assyrian Block script. From this majority there are a few cases in which the scribes used Paleo-Hebrew (see for example 4QPaleoExodus). In addition to the texts found in Hebrew there were also some texts written in Aramaic and Greek. " "Assyrian block script" = square script = the glyphs in Unicode "Hebrew." Elaine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ From elaine_keown@yahoo.com Tue Dec 16 16:50:27 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:50:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from web80706.mail.yahoo.com (web80706.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.63]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBGLoGc11922 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:50:26 -0500 Message-ID: <20031216214942.98714.qmail@web80706.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.83.206.146] by web80706.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:49:42 PST Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:49:42 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Keown Subject: [hebrew] Re: Qumran Greek To: Michael Everson , unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 942 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Elaine Keown Hi, --- Michael Everson wrote: > The X looks like a CHI of course. It is a chi!!!--E. G. Turner Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World 1987 says that chi is an editorial mark. His book has a plate of a Greek ms showing the chi and paragraphos near each other, as in the Qumran Isaiah. Elaine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ From elaine_keown@yahoo.com Wed Dec 17 10:58:17 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:58:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from web80705.mail.yahoo.com (web80705.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.62]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBHFwHc28989 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:58:17 -0500 Message-ID: <20031217155816.45674.qmail@web80705.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.83.206.143] by web80705.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:58:16 PST Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:58:16 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Keown Subject: [hebrew] June Ashton 1999 thesis U Sydney To: hebrew@unicode.org, unicode@unicode.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 943 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Elaine Keown in Austin Hi, I wanted to bring the following dissertation--listed at the bottom--to the attention of the e-discussion groups. I'm going to try to have some American research library or University Microfilms make it available here in the U.S. Apparently Dr. Ashton, an Aussie scholar, compared Greek, Coptic, etc. scribal marks with each other--I believe she decided everything was Egyptian, ultimately. The dissertation is relevant for encoding Dead Sea scrolls in Hebrew - Aramaic - Greek etc, TLG, Coptic, and (probably) Egyptian demotic and hieratic. I think Egyptian demotic or hieratic should be done soon.--Elaine U SYDNEY DISSERTATION: The persistence, diffusion and interchangeability of scribal habits in the ancient Near East before the codex / by June Ashton. Publisher 1999. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ From elaine_keown@yahoo.com Thu Dec 18 12:41:25 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:41:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from web80709.mail.yahoo.com (web80709.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.66]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBIHfOv27465 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:41:24 -0500 Message-ID: <20031218174123.39782.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.83.206.143] by web80709.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:41:23 PST Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:41:23 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Keown Subject: [hebrew] apology; Aramaic unification: Feb 1 - March 31 2004--online archives To: Rick McGowan , Michael Everson Cc: hebrew@unicode.org In-Reply-To: <200312100311.hBA3BhM04653@unicode.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 944 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Elaine Keown Austin, TX Dear Rick, Michael Everson, and List: I have a public apology, a request for Rick/Sarasvati, and comments in this email and the next on Aramaic unification for Michael Everson and the List. First, I would like to apologize for the public and private rage I exhibited last summer, especially towards Michael Everson, vis a vis Aramaic and everything else. I've been waiting about 13 years for Unicode to get fixed enough that I can actually use it in a corpus linguistics Ph.D. program, probably in England. I started losing patience about 1999, and I have little patience left at this point with anyone, whether on the List, in professional organizations, or anywhere else. But I should have been more polite no matter what. I am trying to recruit people who do information retrieval to participate in the Hebrew list, maybe from Feb 1-March 31 this spring. I want other experts to be able to give feedback as we discuss Aramaic etc. unification. I'm requesting that Rick McGowan and Sarasvati consider refining the online Hebrew archives from Feb. 1-March 31 2004. If they could be saved bi- or trimonthly into 2 or 3 archives, that would help people who will be stepping into the discussion at odd moments. I assume this is temporary. It's actually not a great experience to be on this list when one knows nothing about fonts and seldom understands what on earth is being discussed. Of course, real computer scientists wouldn't have that problem, but they also are short of time. Next letter will discuss Aramaic unification per se. Elaine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ From elaine_keown@yahoo.com Thu Dec 18 13:02:51 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:02:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from web80709.mail.yahoo.com (web80709.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.66]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBII2pv28999 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:02:51 -0500 Message-ID: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.83.206.143] by web80709.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:02:50 PST Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:02:50 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Keown Subject: [hebrew] Aramaic unification and information retrieval To: Elaine Keown , Rick McGowan , Michael Everson Cc: hebrew@unicode.org, Bob Pritchett , CDWRobinson@aol.com, Mike_Cahill@sil.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 945 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Elaine Keown Austin Hi, I recently discovered that Aramaic will still be written in 9 scripts, even if its Semitic alphabetic variants are unified into 1 code block (the existing "Hebrew" block). Aramaic is one of 2 holy languages of Scripture if one is a Jew, one of 3 if one is Protestant, and one of 3-4 if one is Catholic or eastern Orthodox. Aramaic is the most polyscriptal language on earth, "unified" or not. It is written in: 1. cuneiform (once, will ask cuneiform list about) 2. Egyptian hieroglyphics 3. Egyptian hieratic 4. Egyptian demotic 5. Alphabetic Semitic "square script" = set called "Hebrew" in Unicode 6. Syriac 7. Arabic (printed liturgical material only, possibly) 8. Roman (dialect called Turoyo, in Sweden etc, 20th century script I believe) 9. Cyrillic (dialect called Aisor, from Caucasian Georgia) The last is mentioned online in an ISO proposal from Japan--Peter Kirk drew my attention to it. I would like more info on this one Most of the earlier literature in scripts 1-6 is of interest to people who work with the Bible, even with the New Testament. Many still assume (I believe incorrectly) that Aramaic underlies the New Testament text. So when Mel Gibson did his recent movie on the life of Jesus, they developed a Palestinian Aramaic dialogue for it, probably looking at the Palestinian Talmud and (I guess) at the Peshitta. So if one writes a large database for the Hebrew (and Aramaic Bible), one would eventually include code blocks for 1-6 in it. So an information retrieval algorithm would have to search at least 6 code blocks in an Aramaic search... That's all for now--Elaine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ From peterkirk@qaya.org Thu Dec 18 13:20:36 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:20:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIIKZv30590; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:20:36 -0500 Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237]) by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id B3E8240C952; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:20:19 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FE1EFEF.3030208@qaya.org> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:20:31 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elaine Keown Cc: Rick McGowan , Michael Everson , hebrew@unicode.org, Bob Pritchett , CDWRobinson@aol.com, Mike_Cahill@sil.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval References: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 946 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 18/12/2003 10:02, Elaine Keown wrote: >... >8. Roman (dialect called Turoyo, in Sweden etc, >20th century script I believe) > > This is basically the script of the Süryani (i.e. Syriac speaking) people and religious minority of Turkey. But it is not officially recognised in officially monolingual Turkey, where writing Kurdish is actually illegal (see e.g. http://kurdweb.humanrights.de/keo/english/culture/articles/cul-articles-06.html), not sure about Süryani etc. In Sweden a number of languages of immigrant minorities, even rather small ones, have some official status even when they don't have it in their homelands. >9. Cyrillic (dialect called Aisor, from Caucasian >Georgia) The last is mentioned online in an ISO >proposal from Japan--Peter Kirk drew my attention to >it. I would like more info on this one > > > I don't have more to add, I'm afraid, except that I think it is also used in Armenia. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From peterkirk@qaya.org Thu Dec 18 13:28:18 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:28:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIISHv00804; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:28:17 -0500 Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237]) by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id 90AAA40C999; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:28:04 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FE1F1C0.3030901@qaya.org> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:28:16 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elaine Keown Cc: Rick McGowan , Michael Everson , hebrew@unicode.org, Bob Pritchett , CDWRobinson@aol.com, Mike_Cahill@sil.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval References: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 947 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 18/12/2003 10:02, Elaine Keown wrote: > Elaine Keown > Austin > >Hi, > >I recently discovered that Aramaic will still be >written in 9 scripts, even if its Semitic alphabetic >variants are unified into 1 code block (the existing >"Hebrew" block). ... > > > Actually I do have more to add, as there are more Aramaic scripts than this. If we are including as "Aramaic" later languages descended from Aramaic, I rather think we need to add Mandaic, perhaps also Samaritan. And what about Osmanya and Manichaean? http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=950 links to more info. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From everson@evertype.com Thu Dec 18 14:03:31 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.62]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIJ3Uv02801 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:30 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:03:24 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031218174123.39782.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031218174123.39782.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:02:00 +0000 To: hebrew@unicode.org From: Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification: Feb 1 - March 31 2004--online archives Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-archive-position: 948 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew At 09:41 -0800 2003-12-18, Elaine Keown wrote: >I am trying to recruit people who do information retrieval to >participate in the Hebrew list, maybe from Feb 1-March 31 this >spring. I want other experts to be able to give feedback as we >discuss Aramaic etc. unification. As I have said over and over again, we're not really actively working on this right now. As far as I can see, your arguments about Aramaic have not been based on the kind of analysis we have been making about script identity. Maybe N2311 needs review and revision. Maybe not. But is there some reason this needs to be a hot issue right now? Personally, I have other things I would rather be doing in February and March than having to take time to deal with this Roadmap issue because that's when you want to schedule. The PDAM text will be under ballot, and there are other script proposals which need to be prepared before the June meeting. For instance, I will probably be travelling to Tehran to discuss Avestan and Pahlavi, Manichaean, and Mandaean with members of the Persian Academy. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com From elaine_keown@yahoo.com Thu Dec 18 14:32:54 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:32:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from web80710.mail.yahoo.com (web80710.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.67]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBIJWrv03615 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:32:53 -0500 Message-ID: <20031218193253.75850.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.83.206.146] by web80710.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:32:53 PST Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:32:53 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Keown Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification: Feb 1 - March 31 2004--online archives To: Michael Everson , hebrew@unicode.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 949 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Elaine Keown Austin Dear Michael Everson and List: > As far as I can see, your arguments about Aramaic > have not been based on the kind of analysis we have > been making about script identity. Maybe N2311 needs > But is there some reason this needs to be a hot > issue right now? It came up for me because of what I have been finding in the Dead Sea Scrolls recently. I finally decided today to just ask John Hudson to also make a Dead Sea Scrolls "Cryptic A" font (another 22 symbols), since I am no longer sure how unified Aramaic etc. should be. > Personally, I have other things I would rather be > doing in February and March than having to take time April any good for you? or May? Or is June 1 the best starting time? That would have some advantage for academics. > For instance, I will probably be travelling to > Tehran to discuss Avestan and Pahlavi, Manichaean, > and Mandaean with members of the Persian Academy. I don't suppose you could look into 10 Persian Jewish dialects written in Hebrew for me. Is it expensive to go to Tehran?--Elaine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ From everson@evertype.com Thu Dec 18 15:02:42 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.62]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIK2fv04506 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:02:41 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:02:33 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031218193253.75850.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031218193253.75850.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:00:53 +0000 To: hebrew@unicode.org From: Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification: Feb 1 - March 31 2004--online archives Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-archive-position: 950 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew At 11:32 -0800 2003-12-18, Elaine Keown wrote: >It came up for me because of what I have been finding in the Dead >Sea Scrolls recently. I finally decided today to just ask John >Hudson to also make a Dead Sea Scrolls "Cryptic A" font (another 22 >symbols), since I am no longer sure how unified Aramaic etc. should >be. Aramaic script or language? I can't evaluate what you're talking about in terms of "cryptic" alphabets. >April any good for you? or May? Or is June 1 the best starting time? >That would have some advantage for academics. June is utterly booked, between going to Iceland for Thornsday and WG2 after that. But in any case I don't know what it is you are trying to do. > > For instance, I will probably be travelling to >> Tehran to discuss Avestan and Pahlavi, Manichaean, >> and Mandaean with members of the Persian Academy. > >I don't suppose you could look into 10 Persian Jewish dialects >written in Hebrew for me. Where are these spoken? The Ethnologue says Dzhidi (Judeo-Persian) is spoken in Israel and Iran by 60,000 people in all. >Is it expensive to go to Tehran? Yes, it is. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com From peterkirk@qaya.org Thu Dec 18 17:44:20 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:44:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIMiJv15314 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:44:19 -0500 Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237]) by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id A0F4240C9A5; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:44:00 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FE22DC0.2080106@qaya.org> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:44:16 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elaine Keown Cc: Michael Everson , hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification: Feb 1 - March 31 2004--online archives References: <20031218193253.75850.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20031218193253.75850.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 951 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 18/12/2003 11:32, Elaine Keown wrote: > ... > >It came up for me because of what I have been finding >in the Dead Sea Scrolls recently. I finally decided >today to just ask John Hudson to also make a Dead Sea >Scrolls "Cryptic A" font (another 22 symbols), since I >am no longer sure how unified Aramaic etc. should be. > > If, as you suggested before, "Cryptic A" is simply a one-to-one cipher for an Aramaic alphabet, then by the principles we recently discussed on the main Unicode list it should not be separately encoded in Unicode, but texts should be encoded in the regular alphabet for the language. Of course that begs the question of which regular alphabet it is a cipher for: Hebrew, "Aramaic", paleo-Hebrew, Samaritan etc. But by the same principle all of these alphabets are ciphers for one another, so it is hard to draw any clear lines. > ... > >Is it expensive to go to Tehran?--Elaine > > > Flights from London start at £356, that is the winter price. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From everson@evertype.com Thu Dec 18 20:43:30 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:43:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJ1hUv18706 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:43:30 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:43:45 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:41:13 +0000 To: hebrew@unicode.org From: Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-archive-position: 952 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew At 10:02 -0800 2003-12-18, Elaine Keown wrote: >Aramaic is the most polyscriptal language on earth, >"unified" or not. It is written in: > >1. cuneiform (once, will ask cuneiform list about) >2. Egyptian hieroglyphics >3. Egyptian hieratic >4. Egyptian demotic It would be really interesting to see references to Aramaic texts in these scripts. >So if one writes a large database for the Hebrew (and Aramaic >Bible), one would eventually include code blocks for 1-6 in it. So >an information retrieval algorithm would have to search at least 6 >code blocks in an Aramaic search... No way! There is no way that a single search for a word like "book" in Aramaic could turn up responses in such different scripts. Let's stipulate a one-to-one correspondance between the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician scripts (as currently roadmapped, never mind whether that's what we will eventually do). OK, a search engine there could find (I'm making this up) yod-shin-vav for Isho 'Jesus' in three scripts via some lookup table. But to expect the same thing with Cuneiform, Egyptian, Latin, and Cyrillic? The orthography will prevent it. /q/ might be written in Latin as q or k-underdot or k-understroke; in Cyrillic, I'm not sure what would be used; Cuneiform might have ish-u or i-shu-u or who knows what. I'm not trying to ridicule you or your work, Elaine, please understand that. But I can't see how a search engine could possibly handle the orthographic differences between an alphabet, an abjad, and two complex alphabetic-abjadic syllabaries all at the same time. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com From elaine_keown@yahoo.com Fri Dec 19 14:32:01 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:32:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from web80703.mail.yahoo.com (web80703.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.60]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBJJW0b20313 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:32:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.83.206.143] by web80703.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:32:00 PST Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:32:00 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Keown Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval To: Michael Everson , hebrew@unicode.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 953 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Elaine Keown Austin Dear Michael Everson and List: > >1. cuneiform (once, will ask cuneiform list about) > >2. Egyptian hieroglyphics 3. Egyptian hieratic > >4. Egyptian demotic > > It would be really interesting to see references to > Aramaic texts in these scripts. I will be working up the references over the next few months--most of them are in my stacks of papers (somewhere). The Hebrew will be pretty much finished at the character set level (I hope) in early January with the exception of format control characters etc, which will go on for months. Aramaic is a far worse problem. Elaine said: > >So if one writes a large database for the Hebrew > (and Aramaic Bible), one would eventually include > >an information retrieval algorithm would have to Michael Everson said: > No way! There is no way that a single search for a > word like "book" in Aramaic could turn up responses > in such different scripts. IMO, this is the "real world" information retrieval problem for Aramaic from 2800 B.C.E. to 1000 C.E....... I assume that it will require difficult IR algorithms, probably a variation for each script, but today I assume that it is possible, though possibly a challenge to program. What bothered me about UTR #3 and the Roadmap is that they interface with this fact, of how polyscriptal Aramaic is even if the semitic alphabetic scripts are totally unified. If you are correct about the IR algorithm, I hope I will know that some time in the 1st half of 2004. I'm going to continue to write IR people until someone writes me back, or something like that. In Cincinnati, Ohio, BTW, there is a government-funded project to collect all Aramaic of all time at HUC - JIR. Most of the Aramaic is the 50,000 or whatever pages of the Talmud, but there are lots of targums (Aramaic translations of the Bible in many dialects) and much eastern Orthodox church literature. Elaine __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ From peterkirk@qaya.org Fri Dec 19 14:48:30 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:48:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJJm9b20472 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:48:29 -0500 Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237]) by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id D409B406C74; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:47:21 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FE355D7.1050404@qaya.org> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:47:35 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elaine Keown Cc: Michael Everson , hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval References: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 954 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 19/12/2003 11:32, Elaine Keown wrote: > ... > >Michael Everson said: > > >>No way! There is no way that a single search for a >>word like "book" in Aramaic could turn up responses >>in such different scripts. >> >> > >IMO, this is the "real world" information retrieval >problem for Aramaic from 2800 B.C.E. to 1000 >C.E....... > >I assume that it will require difficult IR algorithms, >probably a variation for each script, but today I >assume that it is possible, though possibly a >challenge to program. > >What bothered me about UTR #3 and the Roadmap is that >they interface with this fact, of how polyscriptal >Aramaic is even if the semitic alphabetic scripts are >totally unified. >... > > I see the serious problem with scripts like cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics, and even with modern Latin transliterations. But if we do get into the situation in which there are various different 22-letter Semitic scripts encoded in Unicode, it would be sensible to fold these together in DUCET (see UTS #10 at http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/) so that samekh-pe-resh (one spelling of the Aramaic for "book") is matched in the same way whether these letters are in Hebrew (script), Samaritan, Phoenician, proposed Aramaic, Mandaic or whatever, perhaps also Syriac. Or is there a good reason not to do this? I won't suggest including Arabic as that brings in another level of complication. Even if this is not in DUCET, it is surely possible to do this as a tailored collation, and even potentially to include cuneiform etc and Latin transliterations as collation contractions. So the collation algorithm could be made to do much of what Elaine wants. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From everson@evertype.com Fri Dec 19 14:58:49 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:58:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.62]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJJwnb20672 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:58:49 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:58:47 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3FE355D7.1050404@qaya.org> References: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com> <3FE355D7.1050404@qaya.org> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:57:05 +0000 To: hebrew@unicode.org From: Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-archive-position: 955 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew At 11:47 -0800 2003-12-19, Peter Kirk wrote: >I see the serious problem with scripts like cuneiform and Egyptian >hieroglyphics, and even with modern Latin transliterations. But if >we do get into the situation in which there are various different >22-letter Semitic scripts encoded in Unicode, it would be sensible >to fold these together in DUCET (see UTS #10 at >http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/) so that samekh-pe-resh (one >spelling of the Aramaic for "book") is matched in the same way >whether these letters are in Hebrew (script), Samaritan, Phoenician, >proposed Aramaic, Mandaic or whatever, perhaps also Syriac. Or is >there a good reason not to do this? Yes, there is. Scripts are not interfiled in the default table, and it would be wrong to start doing so. If Semiticists need a special tailored version that does it, they can make use of one. This idea would not gly, I am sure. >Even if this is not in DUCET, it is surely possible to do this as a >tailored collation, and even potentially to include cuneiform etc >and Latin transliterations as collation contractions. So the >collation algorithm could be made to do much of what Elaine wants. I would maintain that such an ordered list would be hard to read, at best. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com From elaine_keown@yahoo.com Fri Dec 19 15:11:54 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:11:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from web80702.mail.yahoo.com (web80702.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.59]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBJKBsb20857 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:11:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20031219201153.42184.qmail@web80702.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.83.206.143] by web80702.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:11:53 PST Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:11:53 -0800 (PST) From: Elaine Keown Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval To: Peter Kirk Cc: Rick McGowan , Michael Everson , hebrew@unicode.org, Bob Pritchett , CDWRobinson@aol.com, Mike_Cahill@sil.org In-Reply-To: <3FE1F1C0.3030901@qaya.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 956 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Elaine Keown Dear Peter and everyone: Peter Kirk wrote: > Actually I do have more to add, as there are more > Aramaic scripts than > If we are including as "Aramaic" later > languages descended from Aramaic, I rather think we > need to add Mandaic, perhaps also Samaritan. > And what about Osmanya and Manichaean? > http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=950 > links to more info. I'm confused. Samaritan Aramaic is written in their Samaritan script, Mandaic I don't know about. Osmanya seems to be a script name for a script used for Somali. Do you mean something else? Manichaean is not in Ethnologue as a language name, as far as I can tell--I found it as a script name--script sort of close to Aramaic but used for Middle Persian--and for the religion of Mani. Manichaean script: http://www.iranianlanguages.com/ midiranian/parthian.htm Article on Manichaean from SOAS (London, England) maybe helpful--Elaine ___________________________________________________ A Dictionary of Manichaean Texts Manichaeism, the religion created by the Mesopotamian prophet Mani in third-century Iran, is one of the most fascinating of the world's great religions. A fusion of elements from many sources, including Gnosticism and the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, it teaches a strict dualism of good and evil, light and dark, spirit and matter. Despite almost universal persecution, it spread rapidly and became highly influential both in the Roman empire and in Central Asia, where it was for a time the state religion of the Uighur Turks; it survived longest in South China, where the last remaining Manichaean temple still stands. The scriptures composed by Mani were translated into many languages, forming the nucleus of a huge body of Manichaean literature written in virtually every language of the known world, from Latin in the West to Chinese in the East. For many centuries Manichaeism was known only in a distorted form from the polemics of opponents such as St Augustine. This situation has gradually been transformed by the discovery of substantial extracts from Manichaean texts embedded in Syriac and Arabic works by Christian and Muslim authors, and later, during the twentieth century, of genuine Manichaean texts in Latin (from Algeria), Coptic, Greek and Syriac (from Egypt), Middle and New Persian, Parthian, Sogdian, Bactrian, Tocharian, Turkish and Chinese (from Xinjiang, Gansu and Fujian). This plethora of languages, many of them extremely obscure, is exhilarating but at the same time problematic, since it is hardly possible that any individual would be competent to study all of these sources in the original. The Dictionary of Manichaean Texts is intended to solve this problem by providing a linguistic key to the complete corpus of Manichaean material. Volume 1, Texts from the Roman empire, which covers texts in Latin, Greek, Coptic and Syriac, was published in spring 1999. Two further volumes are envisaged: Vol. 2: Texts from Iraq and Iran (covering texts and citations in Syriac, Arabic and Zoroastrian Pahlavi) and Vol. 3: Texts from Central Asia and China (covering Middle and New Persian, Parthian, Sogdian, Bactrian, Old Turkish, Tocharian and Chinese). The work will be completed by a consolidated English index at the end of the final volume, thus making it possible to locate all available material on any name, term or concept, whatever the language of the text in which it occurs. In November 1999 SOAS was awarded a grant of over half a million pounds from the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) for a five-year project whose primary aim is to produce Volumes 2 and 3, and thus to complete the whole Dictionary. The working plan for the project involves in the first place the creation of a relational database of all the published Manichaean material in the relevant languages. Where possible, the accuracy of the published texts will be checked by reference to photos or to the original manuscripts, and each word of the text will be provided with translation, grammatical analysis and essential references to secondary literature. It is hoped that, in addition to publishing the Dictionary in printed form, it will be possible to make the underlying database available in fully searchable electronic form (on CD-ROM or via the Internet). The SOAS Manichaean Dictionary project, for which Nicholas Sims-Williams has overall responsibility, has established its base at the Ancient India and Iran Trust in Cambridge. This location has the great advantage of easy access to the late Sir Harold Bailey's comprehensive library of books on Iranian and Central Asian studies, which is housed in the same building. The AHRB grant has enabled the project to employ two full-time researchers for the whole five-year period. The first post has been filled since the beginning of the project in January 2000 by Gunner Mikkelsen, whose primary task is the compilation of the Chinese database and glossary. The second post was held for the first eighteen months by Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst. By the time he left the project in the summer of 2001 to take up a position in the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy's Turfan project he had already completed a first draft of the Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian database. His successor is Francois de Blois, who has resonsibility for the Arabic, New Persian and Sogdian glossaries. The Syriac section has been entrusted to Erica Hunter, Zoroastrian Pahlavi to Dieter Taillieu, Old Turkish to Larry Clark, and Tocharian to Georges-Jean Pinault. Contact details:SOAS Manichaean Dictionary project, c/o Ancient India and Iran Trust, 23 Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge CB2 2BG Tel. +44 1223 566167 e-mail: ns5@soas.ac.uk (Nicholas Sims-Williams), gm25@soas.ac.uk (Gunner Mikkelsen), fb2@soas.ac.uk (Francois de Blois) Click here for a shorter, illustrated description of the project. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/ From everson@evertype.com Fri Dec 19 15:31:00 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:31:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKV0b21988 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:31:00 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:31:16 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20031219201153.42184.qmail@web80702.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031219201153.42184.qmail@web80702.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:22:39 +0000 To: hebrew@unicode.org From: Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-archive-position: 957 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Manichaean http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2544.pdf Mandaean http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/mandaic.pdf -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com From peterkirk@qaya.org Fri Dec 19 15:31:39 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:31:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKVdb22000; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:31:39 -0500 Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237]) by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id 49BB840C97D; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:31:22 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FE36028.6050605@qaya.org> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:31:36 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elaine Keown Cc: Rick McGowan , Michael Everson , hebrew@unicode.org, Bob Pritchett , CDWRobinson@aol.com, Mike_Cahill@sil.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval References: <20031219201153.42184.qmail@web80702.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20031219201153.42184.qmail@web80702.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 958 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 19/12/2003 12:11, Elaine Keown wrote: > Elaine Keown > >Dear Peter and everyone: > >Peter Kirk wrote: > > >>Actually I do have more to add, as there are more >>Aramaic scripts than >>If we are including as "Aramaic" later >>languages descended from Aramaic, I rather think we >>need to add Mandaic, perhaps also Samaritan. >>And what about Osmanya and Manichaean? >>http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=950 >>links to more info. >> >> > >I'm confused. Samaritan Aramaic is written in their >Samaritan script, Mandaic I don't know about. > >Osmanya seems to be a script name for a script used >for Somali. Do you mean something else? > > It seems I was wrong to include Osmanya in my list. But Mandaic script is certainly used by at least a small community for an Aramaic-based language, see http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=MYZ and http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=MID. >Manichaean is not in Ethnologue as a language name, as >far as I can tell--I found it as a script name--script >sort of close to Aramaic but used for Middle >Persian--and for the religion of Mani. > >Manichaean script: http://www.iranianlanguages.com/ > midiranian/parthian.htm > > > Well, this says that the Manichaean script was used for "non-Iranian languages such as Old Turkish", and the article you sent confirms that there are Manichaean texts in the Syriac (Aramaic) language. Perhaps I was leaping a bit too far to conclude that the Manichaean script was used for Aramaic texts, but it does seem at least possible. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From rick@unicode.org Fri Dec 19 15:34:51 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:34:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from izanami (ip-216-36-75-240.dsl.sjc.megapath.net [216.36.75.240]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBJKYob22052 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:34:50 -0500 Message-Id: <200312192034.hBJKYob22052@unicode.org> To: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Ccing people Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:34:48 -0800 From: Rick McGowan received: by Apple.Mailer (2.95.2) X-archive-position: 959 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rick@unicode.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Elain, Peter, et al -- I'm on the Hebrew list. Please don't CC me separately on anything going to this list. It just doubles my incoming e-mail volume, which is already very high. Rick From peterkirk@qaya.org Fri Dec 19 15:42:00 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:42:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKg0b25037 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:42:00 -0500 Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237]) by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id 7B83940D756; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:41:44 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FE36297.8070802@qaya.org> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:41:59 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Everson Cc: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval References: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com> <3FE355D7.1050404@qaya.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 960 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 19/12/2003 11:57, Michael Everson wrote: > At 11:47 -0800 2003-12-19, Peter Kirk wrote: > >> I see the serious problem with scripts like cuneiform and Egyptian >> hieroglyphics, and even with modern Latin transliterations. But if we >> do get into the situation in which there are various different >> 22-letter Semitic scripts encoded in Unicode, it would be sensible to >> fold these together in DUCET (see UTS #10 at >> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/) so that samekh-pe-resh (one >> spelling of the Aramaic for "book") is matched in the same way >> whether these letters are in Hebrew (script), Samaritan, Phoenician, >> proposed Aramaic, Mandaic or whatever, perhaps also Syriac. Or is >> there a good reason not to do this? > > > Yes, there is. Scripts are not interfiled in the default table, and it > would be wrong to start doing so. If Semiticists need a special > tailored version that does it, they can make use of one. This idea > would not gly, I am sure. > The reason why I want to make it gly, I mean fly, is that these scripts are not actually separate scripts but are glyph variants or ciphers of one another. As such the only justification for encoding them separately is the requirements of the user communities or compatibility with pre-existing standards; and even this should be checked. (Michael, how would you react to a proposal from your Irish colleagues to propose as a separate script the Celtic-style glyphs often used in Ireland?) They should be folded together for searching in just the same way that black letter and Celtic-style Latin scripts should be folded together with the normal Latin alphabet, and that the variant Latin glyphs in the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block are so folded. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From everson@evertype.com Fri Dec 19 15:55:10 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:55:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.62]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKtAb25776 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:55:10 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:55:03 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3FE36297.8070802@qaya.org> References: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com> <3FE355D7.1050404@qaya.org> <3FE36297.8070802@qaya.org> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:54:56 +0000 To: hebrew@unicode.org From: Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-archive-position: 961 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew At 12:41 -0800 2003-12-19, Peter Kirk wrote: >The reason why I want to make it gly, I mean fly, is that these >scripts are not actually separate scripts but are glyph variants or >ciphers of one another. I disagree. >As such the only justification for encoding them separately is the >requirements of the user communities or compatibility with >pre-existing standards; and even this should be checked. In the default table, scripts are not intermixed, and that is not going to change. >(Michael, how would you react to a proposal from your Irish >colleagues to propose as a separate script the Celtic-style glyphs >often used in Ireland?) I don't consider this the same thing at all. Phoenician and Hebrew are not the same script, even if there is a one-to-one relationship between their repertoires and names. >They should be folded together for searching in just the same way >that black letter and Celtic-style Latin scripts should be folded >together with the normal Latin alphabet, and that the variant Latin >glyphs in the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block are so folded. Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com From rosennej@qsm.co.il Fri Dec 19 16:12:49 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:12:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJLCnb27692 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:12:49 -0500 Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA78097 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:12:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il) Received: from [212.235.76.140] (via account qsm.co.il) by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id QIK0wMQ2 authenticated by POP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:12:37 -0700 (PST) From: "Jony Rosenne" To: Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:12:33 +0200 Message-ID: <000001c3c674$d5bf83f0$0401c80a@QSM4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-archive-position: 962 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew It is the same as CJK, these are just different shapes for the same letters. But Unicode/ISO already decided against unification. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org > [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Michael Everson > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:57 PM > To: hebrew@unicode.org > Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval > > > At 11:47 -0800 2003-12-19, Peter Kirk wrote: > > >I see the serious problem with scripts like cuneiform and Egyptian > >hieroglyphics, and even with modern Latin transliterations. But if > >we do get into the situation in which there are various different > >22-letter Semitic scripts encoded in Unicode, it would be sensible > >to fold these together in DUCET (see UTS #10 at > >http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/) so that samekh-pe-resh (one > >spelling of the Aramaic for "book") is matched in the same way > >whether these letters are in Hebrew (script), Samaritan, Phoenician, > >proposed Aramaic, Mandaic or whatever, perhaps also Syriac. Or is > >there a good reason not to do this? > > Yes, there is. Scripts are not interfiled in the default table, and > it would be wrong to start doing so. If Semiticists need a special > tailored version that does it, they can make use of one. This idea > would not gly, I am sure. > > >Even if this is not in DUCET, it is surely possible to do this as a > >tailored collation, and even potentially to include cuneiform etc > >and Latin transliterations as collation contractions. So the > >collation algorithm could be made to do much of what Elaine wants. > > I would maintain that such an ordered list would be hard to > read, at best. > -- > Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com > > > From rosennej@qsm.co.il Fri Dec 19 16:18:13 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:18:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJLI2b27742 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:18:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA79179 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:17:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il) Received: from [212.235.76.140] (via account qsm.co.il) by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id iaK0EfQ2 authenticated by POP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:17:26 -0700 (PST) From: "Jony Rosenne" To: Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:17:21 +0200 Message-ID: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-archive-position: 963 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew > -----Original Message----- > From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org > [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Michael Everson > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:55 PM > To: hebrew@unicode.org > Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval > > ... > Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square > Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it. But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or Phoenician or Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan. Jony > -- > Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com > > > From tiro@tiro.com Fri Dec 19 16:22:58 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:22:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from priv-edtnes40.telusplanet.net (outbound05.telus.net [199.185.220.224]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJLMwb27768 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:22:58 -0500 Received: from Sophia.tiro.com ([66.183.172.245]) by priv-edtnes40.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP id <20031219212251.OQTE13160.priv-edtnes40.telusplanet.net@Sophia.tiro.com> for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:22:51 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.1.20031219125140.011be608@pop3.portal.ca> X-Sender: tiro@pop3.portal.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:22:38 -0800 To: hebrew@unicode.org From: John Hudson Subject: [hebrew] Word-medial pashta Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-archive-position: 964 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: tiro@tiro.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew From [Richter, Helmut. http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~hr/teamim/syntax.html] : *Pashta vs. Qadma.* Pashta is postpositive to the word, Qadma is positioned on top of the consonant of the stressed syllable. When the stressed syllable is not the ultimate one, Pashta is repeated with a first occurrence on the stressed syllable[,] where it looks exactly the same as a Qadma. The circumstance described by Richter, which is common in the Biblical text, poses encoding and font rendering questions. [It is also not entirely accurate, as the position of the repeated, word-medial pashta relative to the stressed syllable varies: sometimes it is positioned at the upper left of a letter, other times it is centered on the letter and so is indistinguishable from qadma.] The Michigan-Claremont non-Unicode electronic BHS text uses distinct characters for the postpositional pashta and the word-medial when the latter is positioned as qadma. The understanding is clearly that even when positioned as qadma, the word-medial pashta is pashta and not qadma. Because Unicode makes no distinction between postpositional and centered pashta, we have a rendering problem. How do users position pashta as qadma in word-medial situations? I've discussed this at some length with Eli Evans (Libronix), Joan Wardell (SIL), and Ralph Hancock (Antioch), with input from Shelomo (Mechon Mamre), and we concluded that it would be best to raise the issue in this forum. At first, Ralph and I thought a contextual positioning adjustment would suffice to centre the pashta above a letter when it was followed by another letter, but Shelomo and Joan recorded numerous instances in the text in which word-medial pashta was not centered in this way. Some examples from Genesis 1 (M-C eBHS): Ge 1:2.3 - First pashta is centered Ge 1:7.6 - NOT centered Ge 1:9.6 - NOT centered Ge 1:11.4 - NOT centered Ge 1:12.6 - NOT centered Ge 1:22.8 - NOT centered Ge 2:17.2 - NOT centered Ge 2:18.1 - Centered (interaction with Holam) Ge 3:1.11 - Centered (interaction with Holam) Ge 3:7.1 - NOT centered (to left of Masora circle) Although some contextual rules can be derived from such analysis (e.g. pashta always appears to be centered when the letter also carries an un-shifted holam), the rules quickly become very complex and eventually fail to cover all circumstances. There appear to be many instances in which the choice of whether to centre the pashta or not is a scribal decision: not perhaps entirely arbitrary, but not governed by contextual rules. This means that users working with these texts and needing to reproduce what is written must have a mechanism to centre or not centre word-medial pashta. Joan and Shelomo have, until now, been interpreting Michigan-Claremont's encoding for the centered word-medial pashta as qadma in order to ensure that it is correctly positioned. That is, they encode what they see, not what they know. But are there concerns, e.g. regarding searching, when pashta is encoded as qadma? If this is not an appropriate long-term solution, what is? A variant selector? Or...? John Hudson Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com What was venerated as style was nothing more than an imperfection or flaw that revealed the guilty hand. - Orhan Pamuk, _My name is red_ From peterkirk@qaya.org Fri Dec 19 16:49:43 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:49:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJLnNb29482 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:49:43 -0500 Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237]) by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id 78F4D406C6D; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:48:35 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FE37242.808@qaya.org> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:48:50 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jony Rosenne Cc: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval References: <000001c3c674$d5bf83f0$0401c80a@QSM4> In-Reply-To: <000001c3c674$d5bf83f0$0401c80a@QSM4> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 965 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 19/12/2003 13:12, Jony Rosenne wrote: >It is the same as CJK, these are just different shapes for the same letters. >But Unicode/ISO already decided against unification. > >Jony > > > Has this been decided, formally and irreversibly, by Unicode and ISO? Or is it something which could be reversed if sufficient evidence is provided and pressure exerted? Note that I am not arguing for any attempt to change the situation with existing encoded scripts, i.e. Hebrew, Arabic and Syriac. Rather, I am arguing that new scripts should be accepted only if: (a) they have features other than glyph shapes distinguishing them from existing scripts; (b) there is a real demand from a community of users for a separate script allowing distinctions to be made in plain text. I note that in http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf Michael Everson has written: > Note that Jony Rosenne once suggested that we > should not encode Phoenician because it is a > glyph variant of Hebrew. This is not true, > despite the one-to-one correspondence of > character entities. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, for > instance, where the Tetragrammaton is written > with Palaeo-Hebrew letters, it is (in UCS > encoding terms) the Phoenician script in which > the Name is written. This argument does not hold water. In those scrolls where the Tetragrammaton is written in palaeo-Hebrew script, it is clear that the meaning is identical to when it is written in the same script as the rest of the text. So this is not a plain text difference, but a script variant (possibly with some kind of cipher intent) which should be encoded with markup and not in Unicode. The same is true of the more general use of palaeo-Hebrew script in Hasmonean times (and on modern Israeli coins), as glyph variants and a cipher for the more common Hebrew script of the time. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From everson@evertype.com Fri Dec 19 17:12:55 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMCsb30682 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:55 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:12:48 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie Message-Id: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:12:18 +0000 To: hebrew@unicode.org From: "Philippe Verdy" (by way of Michael Everson) Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-archive-position: 967 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: verdy_p@wanadoo.fr Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Jony Rosenne wrote: > Michael Everson > > Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square > > Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it. > > But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or Phoenician or > Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan. Do not mix script families (or genetic history) with their actual use. Each time a script has evolved in a parallel way for other languages, it has introduced its own distinctive features. With your argument, we would have to unify the Latin, Greek and Cyrillic scripts, because they have the same origin. Now move onto their common Phenician origin and we have to unify it with Semitic scripts... What disunified them was the writing direction, which was not fixed in early scripts that allowed boustrophedon ordering, and that had simpler designs with more independant glyphs, and the way the various glyphs combine to create sometimes new letters. For me two scripts that are different enough so that a text written in one script will have imprecise matches in another, and will be hardly recognizable by readers is a candidate to a separate encoding, because it starts its own family of supplementary letters specific to some families of languages needing these extensions. Some of these extensions do not have equivalent in the origin script, and sometimes (often?) their usage start to split with distinct semantics (see for example the various forms of the so-called "Tamazigh" script which is certainly better represented as a family of scripts rather than a single script, with as much differences between them than between Greek and Cyrillic). From everson@evertype.com Fri Dec 19 17:12:51 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMCob30674 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:51 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:12:49 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000501c3c67a$099f2400$0401c80a@QSM4> References: <000501c3c67a$099f2400$0401c80a@QSM4> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:12:45 +0000 To: hebrew@unicode.org From: Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-archive-position: 966 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew At 23:49 +0200 2003-12-19, Jony Rosenne wrote: >So what about Chinese, Japanese and Korean? Was it wrong to unify them? That **isn't** the same thing. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com From peterkirk@qaya.org Fri Dec 19 17:18:38 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:18:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMIRb30713 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:18:37 -0500 Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237]) by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id E367F406CBE; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:17:39 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FE37913.3000502@qaya.org> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:17:55 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Hudson Cc: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Word-medial pashta References: <5.2.1.1.1.20031219125140.011be608@pop3.portal.ca> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20031219125140.011be608@pop3.portal.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 968 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 19/12/2003 13:22, John Hudson wrote: > ... Some examples from Genesis 1 (M-C eBHS): When you say "centered" or "NOT centered", are you referring to how they appear in the printed BHS, or in a variety of printed texts, or in original MSS, or what? To what extent are modern printed texts limited in how they position accents by printing technology? The BHS introduction (p.XI) notes that the type face was "adapted to the limitations of machine composition". Our limitations today are different, less stringent in some ways although perhaps more stringent in others. It would be sad if we continued to let ourselves be limited by what hot metal technology could do. > > Ge 1:2.3 - First pashta is centered There is interaction with holam here, not noted. > Ge 1:7.6 - NOT centered > Ge 1:9.6 - NOT centered > Ge 1:11.4 - NOT centered > Ge 1:12.6 - NOT centered > Ge 1:22.8 - NOT centered > Ge 2:17.2 - NOT centered > Ge 2:18.1 - Centered (interaction with Holam) > Ge 3:1.11 - Centered (interaction with Holam) > Ge 3:7.1 - NOT centered (to left of Masora circle) > > Although some contextual rules can be derived from such analysis (e.g. > pashta always appears to be centered when the letter also carries an > un-shifted holam), the rules quickly become very complex and > eventually fail to cover all circumstances. ... The rule used in printed BHS looks very simple to me, the auxiliary pashta is positioned as far to the left as it can be without colliding with a holam. Even when there is a holam the auxiliary pashta is not strictly centred; note the pashta on tav with holam in 1:2 is slightly further left than the qadma on tav in 1:29. Contrast 3:13,17 where pashta on tav is followed by a shifted holam and so is over the left edge of the tav; and in 3:17 the second time where the pashta on tav is even further left as there is no holam in sight. Note also qadma to the left of holam in 3:14, because this is a shifted holam. > ... There appear to be many instances in which the choice of whether > to centre the pashta or not is a scribal decision: not perhaps > entirely arbitrary, but not governed by contextual rules. ... Can you give us a few examples, or just one for that matter, which is not governed by the simple contextual rule I have given? -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From everson@evertype.com Fri Dec 19 17:27:02 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:27:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMR2b30805 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:27:02 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:27:18 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4> References: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:26:51 +0000 To: From: Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-archive-position: 969 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew At 23:17 +0200 2003-12-19, Jony Rosenne wrote: > > Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square >> Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it. > >But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or Phoenician or >Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan. It isn't, Jony. The history of the scripts is easily mapped as a tree with offshoots. We choose to encode certain nodes on that tree. If you look at N2311, a chart is given on page 4. We may at some stage choose to modify what we've sorted out, but at present we're working with that taxonomy. On that chart, the oldest, Canaanite script isn't proposed for encoding, because it's not complete and it's not been properly deciphered. Its descendants, however split into three nodes. We plan to encode all of them: Ugaritic (encoded), South Arabian, and Phoenician. South Arabian has two descendants which are worth encoding: Ethiopic (encoded) and North Arabic. On the Phoenician branch things are rather more complex. At our current understanding, we propose to unify a number of its descendants in various ways. Firstly, it splits into two branches: Linear Hebrew and (more) Phoenician. On the Linear Hebrew side its descendant Samaritan attained to a particular status, including modern typhographic status, which makes it a candidate for encoding. Palaeo-Hebrew on the other hand, is so like the original Phoenician that there seems to be no reason to differentiate the two. NOTA BENE: In versions of the Torah where the Tetragrammaton is written in Palaeo-Hebrew, it is proposed that these be encoded with the Phoenician script. Off of the Phoenician branch of that Proto-Phoenician we have two branches, one leads to Phoenician proper, and splits off into Punic which itself probably led to Tifinagh, but let's not go there now. On the other side we have the Aramaic branch, which has two major splits: Aramaic, which has lots of descendants, and Square Hebrew > Hebrew as has been encoded. It is proposed to encode that parent Aramaic, mother to so many scripts, as well as a rather large number of its descendants. Unifications and disunifications have to be done with regard to this historical tree. Palaeo-Hebrew and Samaritan descend from Phoenician, and Hebrew descends from it by a different branch. Likewise, Nabataean, Syriac, Jewish Hebrew and Arabic descend from Aramaic. It would be wrong to unify all of this with Hebrew. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com From peterkirk@qaya.org Fri Dec 19 17:38:15 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:38:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMcFb30997 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:38:15 -0500 Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237]) by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id 5A5A1406BEB; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:37:57 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FE37DD5.6090305@qaya.org> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:38:13 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "\"Philippe Verdy\" (by way of Michael Everson)" Cc: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 970 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 19/12/2003 14:12, Philippe Verdy (by way of Michael Everson) wrote: > Jony Rosenne wrote: > >> Michael Everson >> > Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square >> > Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it. >> >> But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or Phoenician or >> Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan. > > > Do not mix script families (or genetic history) with their actual use. > Each time a script has evolved in a parallel way for other languages, > it has introduced its own distinctive features. There are no distinctive features other than glyph shapes distinguishing Hebrew, Phoenician, Samaritan and "Early Aramaic" as proposed in http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2042.pdf - apart from the pointing added later to Hebrew and Samaritan. > > With your argument, we would have to unify the Latin, Greek and > Cyrillic scripts, because they have the same origin. Now move onto > their common Phenician origin and we have to unify it with Semitic > scripts... What disunified them was the writing direction, which was > not fixed in early scripts that allowed boustrophedon ordering, > and that had simpler designs with more independant glyphs, and the > way the various glyphs combine to create sometimes new letters. Absolutely. For these reasons Latin, Greek and Cyrillic are distinct from Semitic scripts, even if we ignore glyph design differences. But these differences are not found between the four Semitic scripts I have listed. > > For me two scripts that are different enough so that a text written > in one script will have imprecise matches in another, ... This does not apply to the Semitic scripts, which have a precise one to one mapping. > ... and will be > hardly recognizable by readers is a candidate to a separate encoding, > because it starts its own family of supplementary letters specific > to some families of languages needing these extensions. If unrecognisably different glyph shapes alone are sufficient to justify encoding separate scripts, I will propose several new scripts e.g. black letter Latin, italic Cyrillic, cursive modern Hebrew, Nastaliq Arabic (actually the evidence on the bidi list today gives a much stronger case for this being encoded as a separate script), three separate Syriac styles, etc etc. And then there are scripts which have been rejected as ciphers, on the basis that they differ from existing scripts only in glyph shape. -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From peterkirk@qaya.org Fri Dec 19 19:20:09 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:20:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBK0Jmb02556 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:20:08 -0500 Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237]) by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id BAFD1408843; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:18:58 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FE39584.8080909@qaya.org> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:19:16 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Everson Cc: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval References: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 971 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 19/12/2003 14:26, Michael Everson wrote: > At 23:17 +0200 2003-12-19, Jony Rosenne wrote: > >> > Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square >> >>> Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it. >> >> >> But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or Phoenician or >> Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan. > > > It isn't, Jony. The history of the scripts is easily mapped as a tree > with offshoots. We choose to encode certain nodes on that tree. If you > look at N2311, a chart is given on page 4. We may at some stage choose > to modify what we've sorted out, but at present we're working with > that taxonomy. The choice of which nodes on the tree to encode seems arbitrary and is highly debatable. Thank you for accepting that it may be necessary to modify this at some stage. Why not now? > ... > > NOTA BENE: In versions of the Torah where the Tetragrammaton is > written in Palaeo-Hebrew, it is proposed that these be encoded with > the Phoenician script. Understood. But you don't seem to understand that this is a glyph variant, not a different script, comparable to the modern practices in translations of writing this name in small caps, italics etc. - variations which should be handled by markup, not in plain text. > > Off of the Phoenician branch of that Proto-Phoenician we have two > branches, one leads to Phoenician proper, and splits off into Punic > which itself probably led to Tifinagh, but let's not go there now. > > On the other side we have the Aramaic branch, which has two major > splits: Aramaic, which has lots of descendants, and Square Hebrew > > Hebrew as has been encoded. > > It is proposed to encode that parent Aramaic, mother to so many > scripts, as well as a rather large number of its descendants. This is a proposal which has not yet been accepted. Jony, Elaine and I at least oppose it. One specific problem is that this putative parent Aramaic has a very doubtful status. You don't give any examples of this script in N2311. The only real data for what you propose comes from N2042, where I read: > The Early Aramaic block should be used for > Late Aramaic (especially papyri), Palmyrene, and Nabataean, Mandaic > and their immediate precursors and successors. > The order shown in the accompanying chart matches the order of the > Early Phoenician block and the shapes shown there are in the Palmyrene > style. But it seems from N2311 that Palmyrene, Nabataean and Mandaic are to be encoded separately. (Mandaic I can accept because of its modern use, like Samaritan.) So what is left for your Aramaic? It's beginning to look like the emperor's new clothes! > > Unifications and disunifications have to be done with regard to this > historical tree. Palaeo-Hebrew and Samaritan descend from Phoenician, > and Hebrew descends from it by a different branch. Likewise, > Nabataean, Syriac, Jewish Hebrew and Arabic descend from Aramaic. It > would be wrong to unify all of this with Hebrew. No one has suggested unifying Syriac or Arabic with these others, any more than they have suggested unifying Latin, Greek, Cyrillic and perhaps Brahmic scripts with them. But we have presented a strong case for unification of several of these other scripts, and we expect it to be taken seriously and not rejected with a simple "we are doing something else". -- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ From everson@evertype.com Fri Dec 19 20:02:20 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:02:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBK12Ib03623 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:02:20 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:02:26 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3FE39584.8080909@qaya.org> References: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4> <3FE39584.8080909@qaya.org> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:01:58 +0000 To: hebrew@unicode.org From: Michael Everson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-archive-position: 972 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew >The choice of which nodes on the tree to encode seems arbitrary and >is highly debatable. It may be. >Thank you for accepting that it may be necessary to modify this at >some stage. Why not now? Frankley, because we have other things to work on, and there are no specific proposals that we have to process/accept/reject regarding what's on the Roadmap at present. There is NO URGENCY to deal with this at present. >>NOTA BENE: In versions of the Torah where the Tetragrammaton is >>written in Palaeo-Hebrew, it is proposed that these be encoded with >>the Phoenician script. > >Understood. But you don't seem to understand that this is a glyph >variant, not a different script, comparable to the modern practices >in translations of writing this name in small caps, italics etc. - >variations which should be handled by markup, not in plain text. I disagree. Palaeo-Hebrew glyphs derive from Phoenician by a different path than that which led to Hebrew. Samaritan derived from a similar path. Where we make unifications, it should be based on historical grounds. >>It is proposed to encode that parent Aramaic, mother to so many >>scripts, as well as a rather large number of its descendants. > >This is a proposal which has not yet been accepted. Jony, Elaine and >I at least oppose it. Understood. >One specific problem is that this putative parent Aramaic has a very >doubtful status. You don't give any examples of this script in >N2311. The only real data for what you propose comes from N2042, >where I read: > >>The Early Aramaic block should be used for >>Late Aramaic (especially papyri), Palmyrene, and Nabataean, Mandaic >>and their immediate precursors and successors. >>The order shown in the accompanying chart matches the order of the >>Early Phoenician block and the shapes shown there are in the Palmyrene >>style. > >But it seems from N2311 that Palmyrene, Nabataean and Mandaic are to >be encoded separately. (Mandaic I can accept because of its modern >use, like Samaritan.) So what is left for your Aramaic? It's >beginning to look like the emperor's new clothes! N2311 is based on later data than N2042 was, which, in fairness, refers to a document published six years prior. >>Unifications and disunifications have to be done with regard to >>this historical tree. Palaeo-Hebrew and Samaritan descend from >>Phoenician, and Hebrew descends from it by a different branch. >>Likewise, Nabataean, Syriac, Jewish Hebrew and Arabic descend from >>Aramaic. It would be wrong to unify all of this with Hebrew. > >No one has suggested unifying Syriac or Arabic with these others, >any more than they have suggested unifying Latin, Greek, Cyrillic >and perhaps Brahmic scripts with them. But we have presented a >strong case for unification of several of these other scripts, and >we expect it to be taken seriously and not rejected with a simple >"we are doing something else". I don't find a "strong case" for such a unification to have been proposed. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com From tiro@tiro.com Fri Dec 19 20:59:07 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:59:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net (defout.telus.net [199.185.220.240]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBK1x7b08711 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:59:07 -0500 Received: from Sophia.tiro.com ([66.183.172.245]) by priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP id <20031220015901.YVEC22233.priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net@Sophia.tiro.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:59:01 -0700 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.1.20031219175206.03751188@pop3.portal.ca> X-Sender: tiro@pop3.portal.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:58:46 -0800 To: Peter Kirk From: John Hudson Subject: [hebrew] Re: Word-medial pashta Cc: hebrew@unicode.org In-Reply-To: <3FE37913.3000502@qaya.org> References: <5.2.1.1.1.20031219125140.011be608@pop3.portal.ca> <5.2.1.1.1.20031219125140.011be608@pop3.portal.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-archive-position: 973 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: tiro@tiro.com Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew At 02:17 PM 12/19/2003, Peter Kirk wrote: >>... Some examples from Genesis 1 (M-C eBHS): > >When you say "centered" or "NOT centered", are you referring to how they >appear in the printed BHS, or in a variety of printed texts, or in >original MSS, or what? To what extent are modern printed texts limited in >how they position accents by printing technology? The BHS introduction >(p.XI) notes that the type face was "adapted to the limitations of machine >composition". Our limitations today are different, less stringent in some >ways although perhaps more stringent in others. It would be sad if we >continued to let ourselves be limited by what hot metal technology could do. A comment from Shelomo: In my favorite Israeli Bibles (by the Rav Breuer), the pashTah in the middle of a word looks just like a qadma, and in my online Bible I have all of them encoded as qadma, just to be sure. Shelomo goes on to suggest that the decision to vary the position of the word-medial pashta in BHS (print) is probably part of a desire to match as closely as possible the L-codex. I suspect he is correct in this. >The rule used in printed BHS looks very simple to me, the auxiliary pashta >is positioned as far to the left as it can be without colliding with a >holam. Even when there is a holam the auxiliary pashta is not strictly >centred; note the pashta on tav with holam in 1:2 is slightly further left >than the qadma on tav in 1:29. Contrast 3:13,17 where pashta on tav is >followed by a shifted holam and so is over the left edge of the tav; and >in 3:17 the second time where the pashta on tav is even further left as >there is no holam in sight. > >Note also qadma to the left of holam in 3:14, because this is a shifted holam. > >>... There appear to be many instances in which the choice of whether to >>centre the pashta or not is a scribal decision: not perhaps entirely >>arbitrary, but not governed by contextual rules. ... > >Can you give us a few examples, or just one for that matter, which is not >governed by the simple contextual rule I have given? I'm hoping that Joan can provide additional analysis. In this case I am just the messenger, nominated to present this matter to the list. John Hudson Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com What was venerated as style was nothing more than an imperfection or flaw that revealed the guilty hand. - Orhan Pamuk, _My name is red_ From rosennej@qsm.co.il Sat Dec 20 02:42:09 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 02:42:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBK7g8b26710 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 02:42:09 -0500 Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA03702 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:42:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il) Received: from [212.235.74.225] (via account qsm.co.il) by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id Ix00kxD0 authenticated by POP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:41:56 -0700 (PST) From: "Jony Rosenne" To: Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:41:53 +0200 Message-ID: <000001c3c6cc$c0a85070$0401c80a@QSM4> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBK7g8b26710 X-archive-position: 974 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew Michael, This is the history of the scripts as fonts, not of the scripts as writing systems. Square Hebrew and Palaeo-Hebrew are different in shapes only (this includes the final shape), and as you said Palaeo-Hebrew and Phoenician are the same script. Cursive Hebrew - modern handwriting and Rashi - are not related to Square Hebrew according to the methodology you describe, but I hope no one proposes to make them a separate script. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org > [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Michael Everson > Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 12:27 AM > To: hebrew@unicode.org > Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval > > > At 23:17 +0200 2003-12-19, Jony Rosenne wrote: > > > > Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square > >> Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it. > > > >But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or > Phoenician or > >Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan. > > It isn't, Jony. The history of the scripts is easily mapped as a tree > with offshoots. We choose to encode certain nodes on that tree. If > you look at N2311, a chart is given on page 4. We may at some stage > choose to modify what we've sorted out, but at present we're working > with that taxonomy. > > On that chart, the oldest, Canaanite script isn't proposed for > encoding, because it's not complete and it's not been properly > deciphered. Its descendants, however split into three nodes. We plan > to encode all of them: > > Ugaritic (encoded), South Arabian, and Phoenician. > > South Arabian has two descendants which are worth encoding: > > Ethiopic (encoded) and North Arabic. > > On the Phoenician branch things are rather more complex. At our > current understanding, we propose to unify a number of its > descendants in various ways. Firstly, it splits into two branches: > Linear Hebrew and (more) Phoenician. > > On the Linear Hebrew side its descendant Samaritan attained to a > particular status, including modern typhographic status, which makes > it a candidate for encoding. Palaeo-Hebrew on the other hand, is so > like the original Phoenician that there seems to be no reason to > differentiate the two. > > NOTA BENE: In versions of the Torah where the Tetragrammaton is > written in Palaeo-Hebrew, it is proposed that these be encoded with > the Phoenician script. > > Off of the Phoenician branch of that Proto-Phoenician we have two > branches, one leads to Phoenician proper, and splits off into Punic > which itself probably led to Tifinagh, but let's not go there now. > > On the other side we have the Aramaic branch, which has two major > splits: Aramaic, which has lots of descendants, and Square Hebrew > > Hebrew as has been encoded. > > It is proposed to encode that parent Aramaic, mother to so many > scripts, as well as a rather large number of its descendants. > > Unifications and disunifications have to be done with regard to this > historical tree. Palaeo-Hebrew and Samaritan descend from Phoenician, > and Hebrew descends from it by a different branch. Likewise, > Nabataean, Syriac, Jewish Hebrew and Arabic descend from Aramaic. It > would be wrong to unify all of this with Hebrew. > -- > Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com > > From peterkirk@qaya.org Sat Dec 20 06:17:12 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:17:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBKBGnb29525 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:17:12 -0500 Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237]) by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id 1CA7240E083; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:15:50 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3FE42F5B.1090906@qaya.org> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 03:15:39 -0800 From: Peter Kirk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Everson Cc: hebrew@unicode.org Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval References: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4> <3FE39584.8080909@qaya.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 975 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org Precedence: bulk X-list: hebrew On 19/12/2003 17:01, Michael Everson wrote: > ... > Frankley, because we have other things to work on, and there are no > specific proposals that we have to process/accept/reject regarding > what's on the Roadmap at present. There is NO URGENCY to deal with > this at present. > Agreed. The only problem is that having the Aramaic script in the roadmap at all, with no question marks to indicate that it is tentative, is confusing to those people who need to encode Aramaic texts now and want to use Hebrew script for it, but find confusing and inconsistent suggestions on the Unicode site that they should not do so. > ... > >> But it seems from N2311 that Palmyrene, Nabataean and Mandaic are to >> be encoded separately. (Mandaic I can accept because of its modern >> use, like Samaritan.) So what is left for your Aramaic? It's >> beginning to look like the emperor's new clothes! > > > N2311 is based on later data than N2042 was, which, in fairness, > refers to a document published six years prior. > If the proposal N2042 referred to in the roadmap i