From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Sat Dec 27 2003 - 13:45:15 EST
At 13:36 -0500 2003-12-27, John Cowan wrote:
>Michael Everson scripsit:
>
>>I remain convinced, however, that suggestion that Phoenician be
>>unified with Hebrew and Phoenician is ridiculous in the extreme,
>>and I will oppose it absolutely. Likewise, it is clear that
>>Samaritan is also not to be unified with Hebrew.
>
>There's clearly a slip here: the second occurrence of "Phoenician" must
>mean something else, and I can't figure out what. However, it is not
>so clear to me that Phoenician and palaeo-Hebrew (and a fortiori
>Samaritan) should not be unified.
Sorry.
I remain convinced, however, that suggestion that Phoenician be
unified with Hebrew is ridiculous in the extreme, and I will oppose
it absolutely. Likewise, it is clear that Samaritan is also not to be
unified with Hebrew.
Currently we do think that Phoenican and Palaeo-Hebrew should be
unified. Samaritan on the other hand is a later development of that
line, which had to good fortune of taking on typographic
regularization and development; it has interesting and unique
features with regard to vowel representation, and a modern community
of users; it is best disunified from Phoenician.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 27 2003 - 14:33:58 EST