From: jameskass@att.net
Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 - 15:24:37 EST
.
Peter Kirk wrote,
> ... But I do know of one person today who chooses to read the Hebrew
> Bible rendered with palaeo-Hebrew glyphs.
http://www.crowndiamond.org/cd/torah.html
Yes, this is fascinating and I'd stumbled across it before.
> Adding points and cantillation marks might be a bit strange, but not
> impossible. Again, it depends partly what you mean by "old Aramaic".
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that adding Hebrew points and marks
to the old-style Phoenician glyphs would be improper.
In my post, when I said "ancient Hebrew" or "old Aramaic", I was
generically referring to any of the ancient writing systems which
are under consideration.
> Don't get confused.
It can get fairly confusing. Hopefully, this exchange of information
and concepts will help to relieve confusion.
> A more compelling argument might be that there are no members of the
> user communities who do not transcribe these inscriptions.
Why is that? Is this done because it is "The Right Thing" to do?
Is it because it is the traditional thing to do? Is it done because
many of the users are completely familiar with the modern Hebrew
script, but can't read the ancient forms without a chart? Is it
because in the past the publishers lacked proper fonts for the
ancient inscriptions? I wonder...
Best regards,
James Kass
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 16:07:30 EST