Re: why Aramaic now

From: Christopher John Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 - 19:10:10 EST

  • Next message: Christopher John Fynn: "Re: why Aramaic now"

    John Hudson wrote:

    > Michael Everson wrote:
    ...
    > >and some documents on different approaches to unifying or not
    > >unifying the bewildering array of early semitic writing systems,

    > That *is* something that is going to impact on what I have to do, and
    > I would really rather not be forced to give up doing other things to
    > deal with that. Which I am, even now.

    If proposals are made for unifying scripts and Michael feels they shouldn't be
    unified obviously he has to make his counter arguments well before there is a
    ballot. If there is just a proposal simply for encoding additional Hebrew
    characters containing no proposal for unifying other scripts with it then
    Michael, or anyone else who feels the scripts should not be unified, has no
    need to comment.

    So if people need these additional characters any time soon I suggest that they
    make a straightforward proposal for encoding additional Hebrew characters and
    either leave
    talk of unifying other scripts with Hebrew aside for now - or make this the
    subject of a separate proposal.

    - Chris



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 21:44:34 EST