Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval

From: Dean Snyder (dean.snyder@jhu.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 26 2003 - 21:21:09 EST

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why Aramaic now)"

    Michael Everson wrote at 8:27 PM on Friday, December 26, 2003:

    >No student of writing systems classes the "Gaelic
    >script" as something different from "Latin script". The same cannot
    >be said of Phoenician, Samaritan, and Hebrew, for instance.

    It depends, of course, on what you mean by "something different".

    If you have glyph variation in mind then there are, naturally,
    differences; if you mean they are different writing systems then no, they
    are not; and contra your assertion, I know of NO student of ancient
    writing systems who would claim that these are different writing systems
    (in the Unicode sense of the phrase, which I presume we are talking about
    here). Can you cite one?

    To get a feel for the kinds of variations that occurred over many
    centuries in the ancient Northwest Semitic script take a look at these
    paleographic charts, which include glyphs for Phoenician, Moabite, Old
    Hebrew, Samaritan, and Old Aramaic:

    <http://www.jhu.edu/ice/ancientnorthwestsemitic/gesenius.gif>
    <http://www.jhu.edu/ice/ancientnorthwestsemitic/gibson1.gif>
    <http://www.jhu.edu/ice/ancientnorthwestsemitic/gibson2.gif>

    These are exactly the same kinds and extents of variations one encounters
    in various Greek inscriptions and manuscripts over the centuries, the
    script variants of which are not, of course, encoded separately. And so I
    think there must be a compelling reason to do so for Northwest Semitic,
    one which I have not heard yet.

    Don't get me wrong, I do think there may be good reasons to separately
    encode some of the script "nodes", as you call them, (Samaritan comes to
    mind, because of its long and separate transmission tradition associated
    with its religion) but we should be very clear that the reasons are NOT
    based on the fact that they are separate writing systems. I see, for
    example, no justification for calling Phoenician, Punic, Moabite,
    Ammonite, Old Hebrew, and Old Aramaic different writing systems.
    (Samaritan, I would have to do more research on with this issue in mind,
    but from what I know now about it, it is not a separate writing system.)

    Respectfully,

    Dean A. Snyder
    Scholarly Technology Specialist
    Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
    Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
    Johns Hopkins University
    Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

    office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
    Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 26 2003 - 21:53:25 EST