From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 20:30:24 CDT
jameskass@att.net wrote:
> Omniglot's Cyrillic page shows O.C.S. (Cyrillic 10th century) and
> Cyrillic (1918 version) in the same graphic. It's real easy to see
> the similarity which is the reason for Cyrillic unification.
I suppose I consider the matter this way: visual similarity recommends unification, but
visual dissimilarity does not always recommend disunification.
I'm not convinced that there is a *need* for the Phoenician encoding, so the matter seems
to fall back on whether the desire of some people to encode ancient Phoenician, Moabite,
Hebrew, Aramaic etc. texts in this way is sufficient reason to add the new characters.
Also, it is not clear to me how widespread this desire is, especially among the community
of scholars who are most likely to be working with such texts.
Again, I'm not opposing the encoding of 'Phoenician' on principle, but I do think it is
more complex than Michael's proposal presumes, and that more consultation with potential
users is desirable. I think one of the questions asked should be, frankly:
Do you have any objections to encoding text in
the Phoenician / Old Canaanite letters using
existing 'Hebrew' characters? If so, what are
these objections?
John Hudson
--
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
I often play against man, God says, but it is he who wants
to lose, the idiot, and it is I who want him to win.
And I succeed sometimes
In making him win.
- Charles Peguy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT