From: jameskass@att.net
Date: Mon Dec 22 2003 - 21:15:39 EST
.
Quoting from:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1308&letter=A
<quote>
... In the letter מ the original bent stem was curved upward still
more until it reached the upper horizontal stroke, so that the
final Mem to-day has the form ם. The Palmyrene script possesses
a final Nun with a lengthened stem; the Nabatean contains similarly
final Kaph, Nun, Ẓade, and Shin, and further a closed final Mem
and final He. ...
<end quote>
So, apparently we have contextual forms which differ a bit between
scripts. (Hebrew has final KAF, MEM, NUN, PE, and TSADI.)
***
If ancient Hebrew and modern Hebrew were the same script, we
wouldn't need the modifiers, we could just say "Hebrew" and
everyone would know what we were talking about.
***
The opening line from the Moabite Stone (Mesha Stele) could be
expressed as "ANK MSO BN KMSMLD MLK MAB", but that's not
a compelling argument in favor of unifying Phœnician and Latin.
Likewise, the fact that some members of the user communities
often transcribe such inscriptions into modern Hebrew is not
a compelling argument in favor of unifying ancient and modern
Hebrew.
***
If it's perfectly acceptable to write old Aramaic using modern
Hebrew glyphs, would the converse also be true?
In other words, would it be perfectly acceptable to use old Aramaic
glyphs along with cantillation marks and modern Hebrew points to
represent the Bible? Or, would it be a travesty to do so?
***
If referring generically to many of the Indic scripts won't float
your boat, suppose we consider the Philippine scripts. Some of
these are arguably glyph variants of each other, yet they
were not unified. (Well, the punctuation was unified.)
***
Referring to the 2311.PDF document, it should be noted that the
phrase "Further research is required" is used twice in the short
section on Aramaic. Michael Everson's submission doesn't strike
me as "by gosh and by golly - this is how we're going to do it",
but rather seems to be a preliminary report offering guidelines
derived from respected sources.
***
Ideally, input would be solicited from members of the user
communities who have read Daniels and Bright (as well as other
germaine publications) and who know something about computer
encoding and the Unicode Standard. (smile) Rara avis.
Best regards,
James Kass
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 22 2003 - 22:03:42 EST