From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 10:23:52 CDT
Your quotation in no way supports your conclusion. I cannot see in how it
could be relevant to Unicode. I have reason to believe that the tana'im were
not familiar with the Unicode character model.
Jony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
> [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 2:51 PM
> To: Peter Constable
> Cc: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: [hebrew] Re: Response to a Proposal to Encode
> Phoenician in Unicode
>
>
> Peter Constable wrote:
>
> >[choosing not to cross-post to all three lists]
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
> [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On
> >>
> >>
> >Behalf
> >
> >
> >>Of Mark E. Shoulson
> >>
> >>
> >>The Tanaaim pretty clearly did not view this as a matter of
> >>
> >>
> >font-variants.
> >
> >In fairness, Unicode does not encode legal judgments any
> more than it
> >does the phonology of any given language. To say that the Tanaaim
> >considers two groups of letterforms to be distinct seems to me to be
> >comparable to saying that speakers of English distinguish
> phonemes /k/
> >and /s/, and just as we don't use that as an argument to
> encode both a
> >"hard" c and a "soft" c, I don't think we can use a legal
> distinction
> >as an argument for or against distinct encoding.
> >
> >
> Well, this is a decision distinguishing writing forms, not
> spoken forms,
> and after all, writing is what we're talking about.
>
> >On the other hand, to the extent that the legal judgment can
> be seen as
> >a reflection of perceptions of script identity by an entire society,
> >that may be relevant.
> >
> >
> Yes. Obviously, I'm not demanding that Unicode support the Tanaitic
> decision for "legal" reasons or anything, just pointing it out as an
> indication that they did not consider Paleo-Hebrew to be the
> same script
> as Square Hebrew. And that, I think, would also be my answer to Dean
> Snyder's response. They distinguished between the two scripts to the
> extent that something written in one was different than the
> same thing
> written in the other. Note also that the very same paragraph
> discusses
> cases of scrolls written in Aramaic instead of Hebrew (or
> Hebrew instead
> of Aramaic, for the Aramaic parts of the Bible). The implication is
> that they considered the scripts to be different scripts.
>
> ~mark
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 09:25:43 CDT