From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Mon Dec 22 2003 - 08:17:00 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
> [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:49 PM
> To: unicode@unicode.org; hebrew@unicode.org
> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
>
>
> At 04:27 -0800 2003-12-22, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
...
>
> >Serious consideration should be given to unifying these scripts with
> >the Hebrew script, of which they appear to be glyph variants.
>
> To you.
Peter is right and is not alone. I didn't see anyone seconding the other
view.
>
> >The separate status of Phoenician may also need to be reconsidered.
>
> Absolutely not. Phoenician is the mother of these scripts and Greek
> and Old Italic besides. Greek and Old Italic did *not* descend from
> "Hebrew", and it is pernicious to go on suggesting that Phoenician
> should be unified with Hebrew. If you want, as some scholars do, to
> write Phoenician in Hebrew script, go right ahead. That is a
> perfectly reasonable transliteration choice. Nothing prevents you
> from doing it. But historical realities and relationships *do* have
> some relation to the content of the Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC
> 10646. And that may include encoding things that you won't use,
> though *others* might.
>
Michael, it's the other way round. Hebrew had been and sometimes still is
written in the script you call Phoenician or Palaeo-Hebrew.
While it is known that Phoenician did not descend from Hebrew, Hebrew and
Phoenician and all other 22 letter scripts in this family are descended from
a common source and are glyph variants.
...
> --
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
>
Jony
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 22 2003 - 08:58:14 EST