From: jameskass@att.net
Date: Fri Dec 26 2003 - 22:25:42 EST
.
Dean Snyder responded to Michael Everson,
> Sounds very similar to the development of the Latin script variants,
> doesn't it?
>
Aren't there many common threads in the development of writing
systems?
> >>Should Latin be separately encoded?
> >
> >Latin *has* been separately encoded.
>
>Not the Latin that is comparable to the Phoenician we are talking about.
(smile) If you're referring to "Old Italic", it's in Plane One.
> Ancient Latin, as a parent script, is roughly analogous to the Phoenician
> under discussion. Ancient Latin does not have a J, U, or W in it, and yet
> Unicode, in the "Latin" block, has "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER J", etc.
Some modern languages use extensions to the Latin script. Others,
like some Polynesian languages, use only a subset.
> These are typically either paleographers, who are more interested in
> emphasizing glyphic variation than commonality,
Is it possible that paleographers are interested in representing and
reproducing stone inscriptions accurately? Could it be said that
paleographers must be aware of commonality as well as variance?
> or they are script
> taxonomists intent on delineating lines of derivation and innovation.
Taxonomy, from the Greek taxis, arrangement + nomos, law. It shouldn't
be much of a semantic stretch to say that some Unicoders are taxonomists.
So, hopefully there's nothing really wrong with taxonomy.
> In
> neither case are they encoders,
Aren't they? The process is open and experts of any persuasion are
generally welcomed. Besides, would it be fair to say that many
paleographers and script taxonomists have been interested in computer
encoding all along?
> and in neither case do they use the word
> "script" with that meaning invested in it by Unicodists.
That may be. But, in either case it is hoped that the needs of script
taxonomists and paleographers won't be disregarded.
> Well I, for one, prefer to read in more paleographically relevant
> renderings; and fonts combined with markup will, of course, take care of
> everything.
That's not very useful in plain text. Unicode is an encoding standard for
plain text.
> >The same can be said for the Indic and Philippine and other scripts,
> >yet we (properly) encoded them. Some of the nodes on the tree show
> >enough variation to warrant separate encoding.
>
> But not the Phoenician, Punic, Moabite, Ammonite, Old Hebrew, and Old
> Aramaic nodes. In fact, the glyphic, or paleographic, variation is so
> slight at times between texts in these languages and dialects, that it is
> the extra-script evidence that is diagnostic for identification.
Quoting from N2311.PDF:
<quote>
Phoenician encompasses:
Proto-Sinaitic/Proto-Canaanite
Punic
Neo-Punic
Phoenician proper
Late Phoenician cursive
Phoenician papyrus
Siloam Hebrew
Hebrew seals
Ammonite
Moabite
Palaeo-Hebrew
<end quote>
<quote>
...most of the scripts are so similar that there doesn't seem to be any
point to encoding them separately.
<end quote>
Best regards,
James Kass
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 26 2003 - 23:08:04 EST