Re: Interleaved collation of related scripts (was: Phoenician)

• Previous message: E. Keown: "Re: Multiple Directions (was: Re: Coptic/Greek (Re: Phoenician))"
• In reply to: John Cowan: "Re: Interleaved collation of related scripts (was: Phoenician)"
• Next in thread: Kent Karlsson: "RE: Phoenician"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

         Elaine Keown
         Tucson

Hi,

> In addition, it's important to always remember that
> "collation" is a cover term for both sorting *and*
> searching. Collating Hebrew with "Phoenician" at the
> first level means that a search using Hebrew
> letters will find "Phoenician" text as well.

The truth is that in about 1200 B.C., 'Hebrew' was
almost the same as 'Moabite' and 'Ammonite' and
'Amorite.' Probably the differences were parallel to
those between British English, Australian English,
Hong Kong English, and American English.

Maybe 'Phoenician' was a little further away
linguistically---as far as 'Scottish English'? Or
possibly 'Indian English' or 'Pakistani English'?

For that level of difference, interleaving makes
sense. ---Elaine

        
                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2'
http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861

• Next message: E. Keown: "Re: Archaic-Greek/Palaeo-Hebrew (was, interleaved ordering; was, Phoenician)"
• Previous message: E. Keown: "Re: Multiple Directions (was: Re: Coptic/Greek (Re: Phoenician))"
• In reply to: John Cowan: "Re: Interleaved collation of related scripts (was: Phoenician)"
• Next in thread: Kent Karlsson: "RE: Phoenician"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 13 2004 - 14:37:50 CDT