From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Fri Dec 26 2003 - 21:38:10 EST
At 06:57 AM 12/26/2003, Michael Everson wrote:
>Every historian of writing describes the various scripts *as* scripts, and
>recognizes them differently. We have bilinguals where people are
>distinguishing the scripts in text; we have discussion, for instance in
>the Babylonian Talmud, specifically discussing the different writing
>systems as different. These scripts share a basic structure, sure. But
>Phoenician a glyph variant of Square Hebrew? Certainly not.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Phoenician is a glyph variant of
Square Hebrew, but rather that both might be considered variants of a
single early Semitic script. I'm not expert enough to take a position on
this, but I think we should try to be clear about what is actually being
suggested.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
What was venerated as style was nothing more than
an imperfection or flaw that revealed the guilty hand.
- Orhan Pamuk, _My name is red_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 26 2003 - 22:09:02 EST