From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2004 - 16:37:56 EST
At 04:33 -0800 2004-01-16, Peter Kirk wrote:
>Michael, you seem to have written "shan" rather than "shin" twice
>independently in the subject line, so presumably this is not a typo.
>Do you actually hold that the letter is called "shan" rather than
>"shin"? Do you have any evidence for this? Are you basing this on
>the table at http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm? As this table
>looks rather old, possibly copied from a 19th century book, it would
>be good to check that these are the names in current use by the
>Samaritan community.
We have a number of sources for Samaritan character names, including
a font made by a modern Samaritan.
SAMARITAN LETTER ALAF
SAMARITAN LETTER BIT
SAMARITAN LETTER GAMAN
SAMARITAN LETTER DALAT
SAMARITAN LETTER IY
SAMARITAN LETTER BA
SAMARITAN LETTER ZEN
SAMARITAN LETTER IT
SAMARITAN LETTER TIT
SAMARITAN LETTER YUT
SAMARITAN LETTER KAF
SAMARITAN LETTER LABAT
SAMARITAN LETTER MIM
SAMARITAN LETTER NUN
SAMARITAN LETTER SINGAT
SAMARITAN LETTER IN
SAMARITAN LETTER FI
SAMARITAN LETTER TSADIY
SAMARITAN LETTER QUF
SAMARITAN LETTER RISH
SAMARITAN LETTER SHAN
SAMARITAN LETTER TAF
>Meanwhile the scholarly world, for whose benefit the LTR symbol is
>being proposed, consistently refers to this letter as shin rather
>than shan - although the SIL proposal of June 2003 for this
>character avoided the problem by proposing the name SAMARITAN
>PENTATEUCH SIGN.
That may well be appropriate.
>(I note that you are still awaiting a public reply to
>http://www.the-samaritans.com/forum/display_message.asp?mid=388).
We had a response from someone there offline with whom we are
talking; but haven't heard from him again in a while. Another contact
is going to do some library digging for us in Berkeley.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 16 2004 - 17:12:29 EST