From: Christopher Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 05:34:01 CDT
E. Keown wrote:
>Chris Fynn wrote:
>
>
>>If you ask Ken & the UTC nicely I should think >a
>>
>>
>"linguistic relationship" between each letter and >the
>corresponding Hebrew letter might be indicated in >the
>name list immediately following the code
>
>
>> <>chart (as is done with 0F9D -> 094D). The
>
Sorry, that should have been 0F84 -> 094D
>> <>relationship between the letters of the two scripts
>> could probably also be explicitly stated in
>> the block intro for this script (and maybe in the
>> block intro for Hebrew as well). If the one to one
>> correspondence is explicitly stated in
>> the block intro this is a lot more than "throwing in a footnote".
>>
>> Dear Christopher Fynn:
>> I didn't get this either, beyond one-to-one
>> correspondence (father was mathematician, used such
>> words). Simpler, longer version appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks, Elaine
>>
>>
Hi Elaine
1) If you look at the list following the table for the 0F00 block
(Tibetan) after
0F84 TIBETAN MARK HALANTA you will see
-> 094D devanagri sign virama
which indicates a relationship between these two characters as described at
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch16.pdf#G7080
[Cross References]
I'm simply suggesting that a relationship between Phoenician characters
and the
corresponding Hebrew characters could be indicated in the same way
2) Each script also has a "Block Intro" in the Unicode standard . (The
block intro
for Hebrew is at Chapter 8.1 of TUS v4 and those for Archaic Scripts are in
Chapter 13). If the block intro for Phoenician contained a clear
explanation
of the relationship of that script to Hebrew this would be much better than
Peter's "throwing in a footnote". If necessary something could also be
added
to the block intro for Hebrew, which currently contains little about
that
scripts development or its relationship to other scripts.
regards
- Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 28 2004 - 05:36:57 CDT