Re: Corrections to Glagolitic

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Sat May 14 2005 - 19:00:24 CDT

  • Next message: Jonathan Coxhead: "Re: what is Latn?"

    At 14:02 -0700 2005-05-14, John Hudson wrote:

    >[In another forum I would raise objections to your pantheistic
    >characterisation of mysticism, but this is hardly the place for such
    >discussions, nor are they relevant.]

    [I'm a Buddhist, John. I don't see mysticism (proper) as being tied
    to pantheism.]

    >There is the matter of texts that deal with mystical traditions to
    >consider, and if there is a mystic significance, in a given
    >tradition, between glyph variants of the same character

    If there is, you will find minimal pairs or other relevant evidence
    that will inform the disunification. I have many books about the
    "secret meaning" of individual letters. Arabic letters. Runes. Ogham.
    Hebrew letters. Latin letters. In general, letter variants don't
    figure in these meanings.

    >as Alexander is suggesting is the case for Glagolitsa, then in the
    >context of such texts the preservation of specific glyph identity is
    >obviously important.

    Possibly, if such texts exist. Such disunifications ought to be
    harder than Cyrillic KU and WE.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 14 2005 - 19:01:34 CDT