Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic

From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Thu Jul 04 2002 - 21:52:15 EDT

Previous message: Michael Everson: "Re: Inappropriate Proposals FAQ"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic"
Reply: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

The Unicode Standard (version 3.0, chapter 7) claims that Ogham and
Runic were still in non-revivalist use to the 16th and 19th centuries
respectively. Does anyone know where the evidence for these statements
was found?

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        jcowan@reutershealth.com
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There are
no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that
they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit

Previous message: Michael Everson: "Re: Inappropriate Proposals FAQ"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic"
Reply: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Jul 04 2002 - 20:19:20 EDT