Re: Revised Phoenician proposal

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Tue Jun 08 2004 - 10:05:42 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Roman numismatic marks"

    On 08/06/2004 06:23, James Kass wrote:

    >D. Starner wrote,
    >
    >
    >
    >>There's a big difference between Phoenician not being a separate script
    >>from those already encoded in Unicode, and it not existing. It certainly
    >>exists as a script variant, like Fraktur.
    >>
    >>In that sense, treating Phoenician as a script variant of Hebrew is a big
    >>win for many of the users of the script, since they would have a hard time
    >>deciphering the bizarre (to them) script variant but have no problem reading
    >>texts originally written in it in different fonts.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Suppose that the following two sentences are true:
    >
    >1) Scholars of Semitic *languages* consider Phoenician to be
    > a script variant of modern Hebrew.
    >
    >2) Scholars of writing systems consider Phoenician to be
    > a distinct script from modern Hebrew.
    >
    >It is hoped that the UTC will give each viewpoint as much careful
    >consideration as it deserves.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Well, James, suppose rather that the following two sentences are true:

    1) Semitic *palaeographers* i.e. scholars of Semitic *writing systems*
    consider Phoenician to be a script variant of modern Hebrew.

    2) Scholars of writing systems *in general* consider Phoenician to be a
    distinct script from modern Hebrew.

    Might that make a difference to the UTC's considerations?

    As for which is nearer to the truth, I remind you of John Hudson's words
    on 21st May:

    > Having spent much of the past year and a half working with semiticists
    > and Biblical scholars, I've come to the conclusion that they know a
    > heck of a lot more about semitic writing systems than typical
    > Eurocentric writers of generic texts on the history and classification
    > of writing systems. I think the expert comments of semitic scholars
    > should be taken very seriously in considering proposals to encode
    > semitic scripts, including objections to such proposals on grounds of
    > script identity.

    So even Semiticists who are more interested in languages than writing
    systems may well know more about the scripts than do the generalists.

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


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 08 2004 - 10:06:31 CDT