From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 11:52:37 CDT
On 02/05/2004 14:38, jameskass@att.net wrote:
> ...
>
>
>The Meshe Stele and the inscription of Edessa were originally written
>in the same script. If encoding the Edessa inscription using the
>Hebrew range would be transliteration, then so would the encoding
>of the Meshe Stele in the Hebrew range.
>
>
And if black is white, then white is black. On the other hand, if your
Edessa inscription (by the way is there an Edessa in Macedonia as well
as the well known Edessa in modern Turkey?), and is written with
Phoenician glyphs (as you have stated, I think), and if Phoenician
glyphs are glyph variants of Hebrew glyphs (the hypothesis being
tested), then encoding the Edessa inscription with Hebrew characters is
not transliteration, just as encoding of a text written in Fraktur with
Latin characters is not transliteration but the standard way of encoding
the text. All this is quite independent of the language of the text.
>If Phoenician is considered a glyphic variation of modern Hebrew, then
>it can also be considered a glyphic variation of modern Greek. Would
>it then follow that modern Greek should have been unified with modern
>Hebrew? (Directionality aside.)
>
>
In principle, the only thing which makes these unifications impossible
is directionality. I am sure there are a number of other things which
would make them undesirable.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT