Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script

From: Dean Snyder (dean.snyder@jhu.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 27 2003 - 11:20:06 EST

  • Next message: Christopher John Fynn: "Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script"

    Michael Everson wrote at 1:38 PM on Saturday, December 27, 2003:

    >At 00:36 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote:
    >
    >>This document by Michael Everson is particularly revealing and in the end
    >>damning to his whole attempt at disunification of the Northwest Semitic
    >>script.
    >
    >I am not interested in participating in this kind of discourse. This
    >is not "Michael Everson vs the Semitic scholars", Mr Snyder.

    I only mentioned your name because the person who posted this reference
    quoted it as an authority apropos to this discussion but did not give
    your, the author's, name; and yet it is YOUR opinions about
    disunification of the ancient Northwest Semitic script which have come
    under scrutiny here. Therefore your authorship of that document is
    material information in this discussion.

    Aside from that, there still remain the substantive questions I raised
    about the actual content of your document.

    >Your "Northwest Semitic" is the same as "my" Phoenician in any case;
    >so, in fact, you agree with the Roadmap as regards some points.

    Not if you exclude Samaritan, Aramaic, and Square Hebrew, which you have.

    >Lumpers can use Hebrew. Splitters need more granularity. We will,
    >eventually, be investigating the levels of granularity that will be
    >useful.

    But my main objection is that you have ALREADY made up your mind about
    Phoenician and Hebrew, categorically and emphatically declaring that
    there is "zero chance" that they will be considered glyphic variants of
    one another.

    --------------------------------

    Terminology has become an issue. I think words like "Phoenician" and
    "Hebrew" are being used in differing ways.

    Phoenician is a language, a group of script variants within a broader
    script system used for writing the Phoenician language, and (for some) a
    whole script system. (See, for example, the confusion in the O'Connor
    taxonomic chart included in your roadmap document, where he places
    Phoenician under Phoenician!). Similarly, Hebrew is a language, a group
    of script variants used for writing the Hebrew language, and an encoded
    script in Unicode. (I know that "Phoenician" and "Hebrew" are used for
    writing other languages, in fact that's my whole point - this is a single
    script system used for writing different languages, and the distinctions
    that exist are primarily linguistic and/or cultural and are not script
    related.)

    I use Phoenician as the name for a group of script variants in the
    broader Northwest Semitic script system used for writing the Phoenician
    language; and I use Hebrew for a group of related script variants, both
    ancient and modern, used for writing the Hebrew language. Because Hebrew
    has a longer and more varied history than Phoenician, when I want to make
    distinctions in the Hebrew group I say Old or Ancient Hebrew versus
    Medieval & Modern, or Square, Hebrew.

    Respectfully,

    Dean A. Snyder
    Scholarly Technology Specialist
    Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
    Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
    Johns Hopkins University
    Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

    office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
    Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 27 2003 - 11:53:06 EST