Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 - 12:28:48 EST

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval"

    On 23/12/2003 08:39, John Hudson wrote:

    > At 03:59 AM 12/23/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
    >
    >> The roadmapped "Aramaic" script, despite being proposed for the BMP,
    >> is not a script in modern use. It is a historic script from around
    >> 2500 years ago which survives only in a few very diverse
    >> inscriptional and papyrus fragments (including those already
    >> separately roadmapped as Palmyrene etc), and in texts which have been
    >> transmitted in the slightly later variant which is called Aramaic
    >> square script or (by Unicode) Hebrew script.
    >
    >
    > It sounds as if you at least have some idea what this historic script
    > consists of, as something obviously distinct from Palmyrene and the
    > square script. What does it look like?
    >
    Sorry, I don't have much idea. My point is that there is no one such
    script, only diverse fragments. See
    http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf, where the following is
    written:

    > Aramaic forms a rather complex family of scripts, with a number of
    > descendants. Certainly there is a basic Aramaic, but it has many
    > descendents (including Mongolian and possibly Brahmi) which are unique
    > enough to merit their own encoding (see table 5.5). More research is
    > required. However, Aramaic is expected to encompass at least:
    > Aramaic proper
    > Middle Persian
    > Parthian
    > Sogdian

    I don't know what is meant by "a basic Aramaic" or "Aramaic proper".
    Table 5.5 shows Hebrew, Palmyrene, Nabataean and ancient Arabic scripts.
    Table 5.3 column XI is represents an Aramaic papyrus script of 465 BCE,
    presumably one of the Elephantine papyri. I can only guess that this is
    intended to be the roadmapped Aramaic script. Aramaic was a widely used
    official language but surprisingly little evidence survives, see for
    example
    http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/projects/sass_project_eng.html:

    > The Aramaic legends, in turn, are in the lapidary, or monumental
    > script. This script is well documented since the fifth century, and to
    > some extent also in the ninth through the seventh century, but not in
    > the sixth. As chance would have it, only one monumental inscription
    > from this time was hitherto known. It came from the Beirut antiquities
    > market, hence its value is less than that of provenanced inscriptions.
    > Our bricks, on the other hand, come from a controlled excavation, they
    > are further dated by the cuneiform impressions of Babylonian kings,
    > and their large number offers a better view of the material. These
    > brick impressions close the gap in our knowledge of the monumental
    > Aramaic script in the sixth century, ...

    Meanwhile I can refer you all to a thread about Aramaic and Unicode at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aramaic/messages/66 (see also the next
    page), from July-August this year, which is discussion among experts in
    Aramaic. Among the contributors is Peter T. Daniels, co-author of
    Daniels and Bright. There are various preferences, and considerable
    confusion about Unicode intentions and roadmapping.

    -- 
    Peter Kirk
    peter@qaya.org (personal)
    peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
    http://www.qaya.org/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 13:16:57 EST