From - Mon Dec 15 07:35:10 2003
X-UIDL: 6e6e1a7512088fd428a305364b1ae6ea
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:35:06 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AVukN-0001FF-Ts
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:35:00 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBFFWqc24191;
	Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:32:53 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:32:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80704.mail.yahoo.com (web80704.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.61])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBFFWqc24163
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:32:52 -0500
Message-ID: <20031215153251.43326.qmail@web80704.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [128.83.206.143] by web80704.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:32:51 PST
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:32:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Alphabetic Aramaic+ unification:  one remark
To: hebrew@unicode.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 941
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

         Elaine Keown
         Austin, TX

Hi,

I've been working some on "Alphabetic Aramaic
Unification."  

Unicode's UTR#3--superseded by the Roadmap--suggest
fracturing alphabetic Aramaic into several different
blocks.  Here is a view on the script of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, at least (Orion Web):

"In what languages were the scrolls written ?
The majority of the scrolls were written in the Hebrew
Language (approximately 90-95%) with Assyrian Block
script. From this majority there are a few cases in
which the scribes used Paleo-Hebrew (see for example
4QPaleoExodus). In addition to the texts found in
Hebrew there were also some texts written in Aramaic
and Greek. "

"Assyrian block script" = square script = the glyphs
in Unicode "Hebrew."  

Elaine

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Thu Dec 18 09:43:54 2003
X-UIDL: 4776006a691ba4e4c02c931e251ec99b
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:42:55 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AX2An-0004AY-47
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:42:53 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIHfPv27473;
	Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:41:25 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:41:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80709.mail.yahoo.com (web80709.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.66])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBIHfOv27465
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:41:24 -0500
Message-ID: <20031218174123.39782.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [128.83.206.143] by web80709.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:41:23 PST
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:41:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Subject: [hebrew] apology; Aramaic unification:  Feb 1 - March 31 2004--online archives
To: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <200312100311.hBA3BhM04653@unicode.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 944
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

        Elaine Keown
        Austin, TX

Dear Rick, Michael Everson, and List:

I have a public apology, a request for Rick/Sarasvati,
and comments in this email and the next on Aramaic
unification for Michael Everson and the List.

First, I would like to apologize for the public and
private rage I exhibited last summer, especially
towards Michael Everson, vis a vis Aramaic and
everything else.  I've been waiting about 13 years for
Unicode to get fixed enough that I can actually use it
in a corpus linguistics Ph.D. program, probably in
England.  

I started losing patience about 1999, and I have
little patience left at this point with anyone,
whether on the List, in professional organizations, or
anywhere else.  But I should have been more polite no
matter what.  

I am trying to recruit people who do information
retrieval to participate in the Hebrew list, maybe
from Feb 1-March 31 this spring.  I want other experts
to be able to give feedback as we discuss Aramaic etc.
unification.  

I'm requesting that Rick McGowan and Sarasvati
consider refining the online Hebrew archives from 
Feb. 1-March 31 2004.  If they could be saved bi- or
trimonthly into 2 or 3 archives, that would help
people who will be stepping into the discussion at odd
moments.  I assume this is temporary.

It's actually not a great experience to be on this
list when one knows nothing about fonts and seldom
understands what on earth is being discussed.  Of
course, real computer scientists wouldn't have that
problem, but they also are short of time.  

Next letter will discuss Aramaic unification per se.
Elaine

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Thu Dec 18 10:06:04 2003
X-UIDL: e11145bece2ede7a45b837db39192b7e
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:04:59 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AX2WA-0004sf-Hr
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:04:58 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBII2qv29007;
	Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:02:52 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:02:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80709.mail.yahoo.com (web80709.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.66])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBII2pv28999
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:02:51 -0500
Message-ID: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [128.83.206.143] by web80709.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:02:50 PST
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:02:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Aramaic unification and information retrieval
To: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>, Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>,
   Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org, Bob Pritchett <bob@logos.com>, CDWRobinson@aol.com,
   Mike_Cahill@sil.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 945
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

         Elaine Keown
         Austin

Hi,

I recently discovered that Aramaic will still be
written in 9 scripts, even if its Semitic alphabetic
variants are unified into 1 code block (the existing
"Hebrew" block).  

Aramaic is one of 2 holy languages of Scripture if one
is a Jew, one of 3 if one is Protestant, and one of 
3-4 if one is Catholic or eastern Orthodox.

Aramaic is the most polyscriptal language on earth,
"unified" or not.  It is written in:

1.  cuneiform (once, will ask cuneiform list about)
2.  Egyptian hieroglyphics
3.  Egyptian hieratic
4.  Egyptian demotic
5.  Alphabetic Semitic "square script" = set called
"Hebrew" in Unicode
6.  Syriac
7.  Arabic (printed liturgical material only,
possibly)
8.  Roman (dialect called Turoyo, in Sweden etc, 
20th century script I believe)
9.  Cyrillic (dialect called Aisor, from Caucasian
Georgia)  The last is mentioned online in an ISO
proposal from Japan--Peter Kirk drew my attention to
it.  I would like more info on this one

Most of the earlier literature in scripts 1-6 is of
interest to people who work with the Bible, even with
the New Testament.  

Many still assume (I believe incorrectly) that Aramaic
underlies the New Testament text.  So when Mel Gibson
did his recent movie on the life of Jesus, they
developed a Palestinian Aramaic dialogue for it,
probably looking at the Palestinian Talmud and (I
guess) at the Peshitta.

So if one writes a large database for the Hebrew (and
Aramaic Bible), one would eventually include code
blocks for 1-6 in it.  So an information retrieval
algorithm would have to search at least 6 code blocks
in an Aramaic search...

That's all for now--Elaine

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Thu Dec 18 10:26:03 2003
X-UIDL: 72dc4b18cf742e9f624027aa1b266b10
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:23:33 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AX2o7-0005Xz-4B
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:23:31 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIIKdv30596;
	Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:20:39 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:20:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIIKZv30590;
	Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:20:36 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id B3E8240C952; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:20:19 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE1EFEF.3030208@qaya.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:20:31 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Cc: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>,
   hebrew@unicode.org, Bob Pritchett <bob@logos.com>, CDWRobinson@aol.com,
   Mike_Cahill@sil.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 946
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBIIKdv30596
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 18/12/2003 10:02, Elaine Keown wrote:

>...
>8.  Roman (dialect called Turoyo, in Sweden etc,=20
>20th century script I believe)
> =20
>

This is basically the script of the S=FCryani (i.e. Syriac speaking)=20
people and religious minority of Turkey. But it is not officially=20
recognised in officially monolingual Turkey, where writing Kurdish is=20
actually illegal (see e.g.=20
http://kurdweb.humanrights.de/keo/english/culture/articles/cul-articles-0=
6.html),=20
not sure about S=FCryani etc. In Sweden a number of languages of immigran=
t=20
minorities, even rather small ones, have some official status even when=20
they don't have it in their homelands.

>9.  Cyrillic (dialect called Aisor, from Caucasian
>Georgia)  The last is mentioned online in an ISO
>proposal from Japan--Peter Kirk drew my attention to
>it.  I would like more info on this one
>
> =20
>
I don't have more to add, I'm afraid, except that I think it is also=20
used in Armenia.



--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Thu Dec 18 10:36:03 2003
X-UIDL: 6ceb1705655d566f08f3bf36f27996e5
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:32:59 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AX2xC-0005pj-8P
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:32:54 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIISNv00810;
	Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:28:23 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:28:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIISHv00804;
	Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:28:17 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 90AAA40C999; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:28:04 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE1F1C0.3030901@qaya.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:28:16 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Cc: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>,
   hebrew@unicode.org, Bob Pritchett <bob@logos.com>, CDWRobinson@aol.com,
   Mike_Cahill@sil.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 947
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 18/12/2003 10:02, Elaine Keown wrote:

>         Elaine Keown
>         Austin
>
>Hi,
>
>I recently discovered that Aramaic will still be
>written in 9 scripts, even if its Semitic alphabetic
>variants are unified into 1 code block (the existing
>"Hebrew" block).  ...
>
>  
>
Actually I do have more to add, as there are more Aramaic scripts than 
this. If we are including as "Aramaic" later languages descended from 
Aramaic, I rather think we need to add Mandaic, perhaps also Samaritan. 
And what about Osmanya and Manichaean? 
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=950 links to more info.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Thu Dec 18 11:16:02 2003
X-UIDL: ed6df7bac097ed063f322bb14fdffd7b
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:06:19 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AX3TV-000799-DK
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:06:17 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIJ3Vv02807;
	Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:31 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.62])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIJ3Uv02801
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:03:30 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0033701370@ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:03:24 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020415bc07a4ca8641@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20031218174123.39782.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031218174123.39782.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:02:00 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification:  Feb 1 - March 31 2004--online archives
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 948
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 09:41 -0800 2003-12-18, Elaine Keown wrote:

>I am trying to recruit people who do information retrieval to 
>participate in the Hebrew list, maybe from Feb 1-March 31 this 
>spring. I want other experts to be able to give feedback as we 
>discuss Aramaic etc. unification.

As I have said over and over again, we're not really actively working 
on this right now. As far as I can see, your arguments about Aramaic 
have not been based on the kind of analysis we have been making about 
script identity. Maybe N2311 needs review and revision. Maybe not. 
But is there some reason this needs to be a hot issue right now?

Personally, I have other things I would rather be doing in February 
and March than having to take time to deal with this Roadmap issue 
because that's when you want to schedule. The PDAM text will be under 
ballot, and there are other script proposals which need to be 
prepared before the June meeting.

For instance, I will probably be travelling to Tehran to discuss 
Avestan and Pahlavi, Manichaean, and Mandaean with members of the 
Persian Academy.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Thu Dec 18 11:46:02 2003
X-UIDL: dd642c65896eb7c95964ecb1812d12aa
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:36:03 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AX3wG-0008Mq-L5
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:36:00 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIJWsv03621;
	Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:32:54 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:32:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80710.mail.yahoo.com (web80710.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.67])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBIJWrv03615
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:32:53 -0500
Message-ID: <20031218193253.75850.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [128.83.206.146] by web80710.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:32:53 PST
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:32:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification:  Feb 1 - March 31 2004--online archives
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <p06020415bc07a4ca8641@[192.168.0.2]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 949
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

          Elaine Keown
          Austin

Dear Michael Everson and List:

> As far as I can see, your arguments about Aramaic 
> have not been based on the kind of analysis we have
> been making about script identity. Maybe N2311 needs

> But is there some reason this needs to be a hot
> issue right now?

It came up for me because of what I have been finding
in the Dead Sea Scrolls recently.  I finally decided
today to just ask John Hudson to also make a Dead Sea
Scrolls "Cryptic A" font (another 22 symbols), since I
am no longer sure how unified Aramaic etc. should be.

> Personally, I have other things I would rather be
> doing in February and March than having to take time


April any good for you?  or May?  
Or is June 1 the best starting time?
That would have some advantage for academics.

> For instance, I will probably be travelling to
> Tehran to discuss Avestan and Pahlavi, Manichaean, 
> and Mandaean with members of the Persian Academy.

I don't suppose you could look into 10 Persian Jewish
dialects written in Hebrew for me.

Is it expensive to go to Tehran?--Elaine

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Thu Dec 18 12:16:03 2003
X-UIDL: 9989e2ed27712b6933efb0a2e1f273ba
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:10:10 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AX4TG-0001Bd-Be
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:10:06 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIK2gv04512;
	Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:02:42 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:02:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.62])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIK2fv04506
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:02:41 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0033704584@ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:02:33 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p0602041ebc07b287be9a@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20031218193253.75850.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031218193253.75850.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:00:53 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification:  Feb 1 - March 31
 2004--online archives
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 950
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 11:32 -0800 2003-12-18, Elaine Keown wrote:

>It came up for me because of what I have been finding in the Dead 
>Sea Scrolls recently. I finally decided today to just ask John 
>Hudson to also make a Dead Sea Scrolls "Cryptic A" font (another 22 
>symbols), since I am no longer sure how unified Aramaic etc. should 
>be.

Aramaic script or language? I can't evaluate what you're talking 
about in terms of "cryptic" alphabets.

>April any good for you?  or May? Or is June 1 the best starting time?
>That would have some advantage for academics.

June is utterly booked, between going to Iceland for Thornsday and 
WG2 after that. But in any case I don't know what it is you are 
trying to do.

>  > For instance, I will probably be travelling to
>>  Tehran to discuss Avestan and Pahlavi, Manichaean,
>>  and Mandaean with members of the Persian Academy.
>
>I don't suppose you could look into 10 Persian Jewish dialects 
>written in Hebrew for me.

Where are these spoken? The Ethnologue says Dzhidi (Judeo-Persian) is 
spoken in Israel and Iran by 60,000 people in all.

>Is it expensive to go to Tehran?

Yes, it is.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Thu Dec 18 14:56:04 2003
X-UIDL: 7976afa2bcfe697e0c9975695a444851
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:51:43 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AX6zc-0006TV-R8
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:51:40 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIMiKv15320;
	Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:44:20 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:44:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBIMiJv15314
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:44:19 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id A0F4240C9A5; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:44:00 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE22DC0.2080106@qaya.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:44:16 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Cc: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification:  Feb 1 - March 31 2004--online
 archives
References: <20031218193253.75850.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031218193253.75850.qmail@web80710.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 951
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBIMiKv15320
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 18/12/2003 11:32, Elaine Keown wrote:

> ...
>
>It came up for me because of what I have been finding
>in the Dead Sea Scrolls recently.  I finally decided
>today to just ask John Hudson to also make a Dead Sea
>Scrolls "Cryptic A" font (another 22 symbols), since I
>am no longer sure how unified Aramaic etc. should be.
> =20
>

If, as you suggested before, "Cryptic A" is simply a one-to-one cipher=20
for an Aramaic alphabet, then by the principles we recently discussed on=20
the main Unicode list it should not be separately encoded in Unicode,=20
but texts should be encoded in the regular alphabet for the language. Of=20
course that begs the question of which regular alphabet it is a cipher=20
for: Hebrew, "Aramaic", paleo-Hebrew, Samaritan etc.

But by the same principle all of these alphabets are ciphers for one=20
another, so it is hard to draw any clear lines.

> ...
>
>Is it expensive to go to Tehran?--Elaine
>
> =20
>
Flights from London start at =A3356, that is the winter price.

--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Fri Dec 19 02:38:32 2003
X-UIDL: df4c7d12211795aad8b6f1fa7a16ac5c
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:45:23 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AX9hf-0002pE-10
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:45:19 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJ1hVv18731;
	Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:43:31 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:43:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJ1hUv18706
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:43:30 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0033723995@ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:43:45 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020430bc0804f51070@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031218180250.46196.qmail@web80709.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:41:13 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 952
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 10:02 -0800 2003-12-18, Elaine Keown wrote:

>Aramaic is the most polyscriptal language on earth,
>"unified" or not.  It is written in:
>
>1.  cuneiform (once, will ask cuneiform list about)
>2.  Egyptian hieroglyphics
>3.  Egyptian hieratic
>4.  Egyptian demotic

It would be really interesting to see references to Aramaic texts in 
these scripts.

>So if one writes a large database for the Hebrew (and Aramaic 
>Bible), one would eventually include code blocks for 1-6 in it.  So 
>an information retrieval algorithm would have to search at least 6 
>code blocks in an Aramaic search...

No way! There is no way that a single search for a word like "book" 
in Aramaic could turn up responses in such different scripts. Let's 
stipulate a one-to-one correspondance between the Hebrew, Aramaic, 
and Phoenician scripts (as currently roadmapped, never mind whether 
that's what we will eventually do). OK, a search engine there could 
find (I'm making this up) yod-shin-vav for Isho 'Jesus' in three 
scripts via some lookup table. But to expect the same thing with 
Cuneiform, Egyptian, Latin, and Cyrillic? The orthography will 
prevent it. /q/ might be written in Latin as q or k-underdot or 
k-understroke; in Cyrillic, I'm not sure what would be used; 
Cuneiform might have ish-u or i-shu-u or who knows what.

I'm not trying to ridicule you or your work, Elaine, please 
understand that. But I can't see how a search engine could possibly 
handle the orthographic differences between an alphabet, an abjad, 
and two complex alphabetic-abjadic syllabaries all at the same time.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Fri Dec 19 11:34:48 2003
X-UIDL: 8263269a612616d26cae9f9d13bc7990
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:33:32 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXQNM-0003hG-4e
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:33:28 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJJW1b20319;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:32:01 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:32:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80703.mail.yahoo.com (web80703.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.60])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBJJW0b20313
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:32:00 -0500
Message-ID: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [128.83.206.143] by web80703.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:32:00 PST
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:32:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <p06020430bc0804f51070@[192.168.0.2]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 953
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

      Elaine Keown
      Austin

Dear Michael Everson and List:

> >1.  cuneiform (once, will ask cuneiform list about)
> >2.  Egyptian hieroglyphics 3.  Egyptian hieratic
> >4.  Egyptian demotic
> 
> It would be really interesting to see references to
> Aramaic texts in  these scripts.

I will be working up the references over the next few
months--most of them are in my stacks of papers
(somewhere).  The Hebrew will be pretty much finished
at the character set level (I hope) in early January
with the exception of format control characters etc,
which will go on for months.  Aramaic is a far worse
problem.  

Elaine said:
> >So if one writes a large database for the Hebrew
> (and Aramaic Bible), one would eventually include  
> >an information retrieval algorithm would have to

Michael Everson said:
> No way! There is no way that a single search for a
> word like "book" in Aramaic could turn up responses
> in such different scripts. 

IMO, this is the "real world" information retrieval
problem for Aramaic from 2800 B.C.E. to 1000
C.E.......

I assume that it will require difficult IR algorithms,
probably a variation for each script, but today I
assume that it is possible, though possibly a
challenge to program.  

What bothered me about UTR #3 and the Roadmap is that
they interface with this fact, of how polyscriptal
Aramaic is even if the semitic alphabetic scripts are
totally unified.

If you are correct about the IR algorithm, I hope I
will know that some time in the 1st half of 2004.  I'm
going to continue to write IR people until someone
writes me back, or something like that.

In Cincinnati, Ohio, BTW, there is a government-funded
project to collect all Aramaic of all time at HUC -
JIR.  Most of the Aramaic is the 50,000 or whatever
pages of the Talmud, but there are lots of targums
(Aramaic translations of the Bible in many dialects)
and much eastern Orthodox church literature.  

Elaine 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Fri Dec 19 11:55:23 2003
X-UIDL: 392479dd64f42c6f220987b137ea5868
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:52:49 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXQg3-0004Dd-3A
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:52:47 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJJmqb20585;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:48:57 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:48:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJJm9b20472
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:48:29 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id D409B406C74; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:47:21 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE355D7.1050404@qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:47:35 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Cc: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 954
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 19/12/2003 11:32, Elaine Keown wrote:

> ...
>
>Michael Everson said:
>  
>
>>No way! There is no way that a single search for a
>>word like "book" in Aramaic could turn up responses
>>in such different scripts. 
>>    
>>
>
>IMO, this is the "real world" information retrieval
>problem for Aramaic from 2800 B.C.E. to 1000
>C.E.......
>
>I assume that it will require difficult IR algorithms,
>probably a variation for each script, but today I
>assume that it is possible, though possibly a
>challenge to program.  
>
>What bothered me about UTR #3 and the Roadmap is that
>they interface with this fact, of how polyscriptal
>Aramaic is even if the semitic alphabetic scripts are
>totally unified.
>...
>  
>
I see the serious problem with scripts like cuneiform and Egyptian 
hieroglyphics, and even with modern Latin transliterations. But if we do 
get into the situation in which there are various different 22-letter 
Semitic scripts encoded in Unicode, it would be sensible to fold these 
together in DUCET (see UTS #10 at http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/) 
so that samekh-pe-resh (one spelling of the Aramaic for "book") is 
matched in the same way whether these letters are in Hebrew (script), 
Samaritan, Phoenician, proposed Aramaic, Mandaic or whatever, perhaps 
also Syriac. Or is there a good reason not to do this? I won't suggest 
including Arabic as that brings in another level of complication.

Even if this is not in DUCET, it is surely possible to do this as a 
tailored collation, and even potentially to include cuneiform etc and 
Latin transliterations as collation contractions. So the collation 
algorithm could be made to do much of what Elaine wants.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Fri Dec 19 12:08:23 2003
X-UIDL: dd97c00e52ff84209b8c8f88d8d7698a
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:00:16 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXQnG-0004Or-Hr
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:00:14 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJJwnb20679;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:58:49 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:58:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.62])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJJwnb20672
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:58:49 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0033778082@ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:58:47 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p0602040cbc09081c3aff@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FE355D7.1050404@qaya.org>
References: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com>
 <3FE355D7.1050404@qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:57:05 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 955
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 11:47 -0800 2003-12-19, Peter Kirk wrote:

>I see the serious problem with scripts like cuneiform and Egyptian 
>hieroglyphics, and even with modern Latin transliterations. But if 
>we do get into the situation in which there are various different 
>22-letter Semitic scripts encoded in Unicode, it would be sensible 
>to fold these together in DUCET (see UTS #10 at 
>http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/) so that samekh-pe-resh (one 
>spelling of the Aramaic for "book") is matched in the same way 
>whether these letters are in Hebrew (script), Samaritan, Phoenician, 
>proposed Aramaic, Mandaic or whatever, perhaps also Syriac. Or is 
>there a good reason not to do this?

Yes, there is. Scripts are not interfiled in the default table, and 
it would be wrong to start doing so. If Semiticists need a special 
tailored version that does it, they can make use of one. This idea 
would not gly, I am sure.

>Even if this is not in DUCET, it is surely possible to do this as a 
>tailored collation, and even potentially to include cuneiform etc 
>and Latin transliterations as collation contractions. So the 
>collation algorithm could be made to do much of what Elaine wants.

I would maintain that such an ordered list would be hard to read, at best.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Fri Dec 19 12:18:22 2003
X-UIDL: 38b1d03263bdf2d6ba0073d15787354b
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:15:10 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXR1g-0004oZ-9q
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:15:08 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKBsb20866;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:11:54 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:11:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80702.mail.yahoo.com (web80702.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.59])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBJKBsb20857
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:11:54 -0500
Message-ID: <20031219201153.42184.qmail@web80702.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [128.83.206.143] by web80702.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:11:53 PST
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:11:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
Cc: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>,
   hebrew@unicode.org, Bob Pritchett <bob@logos.com>, CDWRobinson@aol.com,
   Mike_Cahill@sil.org
In-Reply-To: <3FE1F1C0.3030901@qaya.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 956
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

       Elaine Keown

Dear Peter and everyone:

Peter Kirk wrote:
> Actually I do have more to add, as there are more
> Aramaic scripts than 
> If we are including as "Aramaic" later
> languages descended from Aramaic, I rather think we
> need to add Mandaic, perhaps also Samaritan. 
> And what about Osmanya and Manichaean? 
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=950
> links to more info.

I'm confused.  Samaritan Aramaic is written in their
Samaritan script, Mandaic I don't know about.  

Osmanya seems to be a script name for a script used
for Somali.  Do you mean something else?  

Manichaean is not in Ethnologue as a language name, as
far as I can tell--I found it as a script name--script
sort of close to Aramaic but used for Middle
Persian--and for the religion of Mani.

Manichaean script:  http://www.iranianlanguages.com/
   midiranian/parthian.htm

Article on Manichaean from SOAS (London, England)
maybe helpful--Elaine
___________________________________________________
A Dictionary of Manichaean Texts
Manichaeism, the religion created by the Mesopotamian
prophet Mani in third-century Iran, is one of the most
fascinating of the world's great religions. A fusion
of elements from many sources, including Gnosticism
and the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Zoroastrianism and
Buddhism, it teaches a strict dualism of good and
evil, light and dark, spirit and matter. Despite
almost universal persecution, it spread rapidly and
became highly influential both in the Roman empire and
in Central Asia, where it was for a time the state
religion of the Uighur Turks; it survived longest in
South China, where the last remaining Manichaean
temple still stands. The scriptures composed by Mani
were translated into many languages, forming the
nucleus of a huge body of Manichaean literature
written in virtually every language of the known
world, from Latin in the West to Chinese in the East.

For many centuries Manichaeism was known only in a
distorted form from the polemics of opponents such as
St Augustine. This situation has gradually been
transformed by the discovery of substantial extracts
from Manichaean texts embedded in Syriac and Arabic
works by Christian and Muslim authors, and later,
during the twentieth century, of genuine Manichaean
texts in Latin (from Algeria), Coptic, Greek and
Syriac (from Egypt), Middle and New Persian, Parthian,
Sogdian, Bactrian, Tocharian, Turkish and Chinese
(from Xinjiang, Gansu and Fujian). This plethora of
languages, many of them extremely obscure, is
exhilarating but at the same time problematic, since
it is hardly possible that any individual would be
competent to study all of these sources in the
original.

The Dictionary of Manichaean Texts is intended to
solve this problem by providing a linguistic key to
the complete corpus of Manichaean material. Volume 1,
Texts from the Roman empire, which covers texts in
Latin, Greek, Coptic and Syriac, was published in
spring 1999. Two further volumes are envisaged: Vol.
2: Texts from Iraq and Iran (covering texts and
citations in Syriac, Arabic and Zoroastrian Pahlavi)
and Vol. 3: Texts from Central Asia and China
(covering Middle and New Persian, Parthian, Sogdian,
Bactrian, Old Turkish, Tocharian and Chinese). The
work will be completed by a consolidated English index
at the end of the final volume, thus making it
possible to locate all available material on any name,
term or concept, whatever the language of the text in
which it occurs.

In November 1999 SOAS was awarded a grant of over half
a million pounds from the Arts and Humanities Research
Board (AHRB) for a five-year project whose primary aim
is to produce Volumes 2 and 3, and thus to complete
the whole Dictionary. The working plan for the project
involves in the first place the creation of a
relational database of all the published Manichaean
material in the relevant languages. Where possible,
the accuracy of the published texts will be checked by
reference to photos or to the original manuscripts,
and each word of the text will be provided with
translation, grammatical analysis and essential
references to secondary literature. It is hoped that,
in addition to publishing the Dictionary in printed
form, it will be possible to make the underlying
database available in fully searchable electronic form
(on CD-ROM or via the Internet).

The SOAS Manichaean Dictionary project, for which
Nicholas Sims-Williams has overall responsibility, has
established its base at the Ancient India and Iran
Trust in Cambridge. This location has the great
advantage of easy access to the late Sir Harold
Bailey's comprehensive library of books on Iranian and
Central Asian studies, which is housed in the same
building. The AHRB grant has enabled the project to
employ two full-time researchers for the whole
five-year period. The first post has been filled since
the beginning of the project in January 2000 by Gunner
Mikkelsen, whose primary task is the compilation of
the Chinese database and glossary. The second post was
held for the first eighteen months by Desmond
Durkin-Meisterernst. By the time he left the project
in the summer of 2001 to take up a position in the
Berlin-Brandenburg Academy's Turfan project he had
already completed a first draft of the Manichaean
Middle Persian and Parthian database. His successor is
Francois de Blois, who has resonsibility for the
Arabic, New Persian and Sogdian glossaries. The Syriac
section has been entrusted to Erica Hunter,
Zoroastrian Pahlavi to Dieter Taillieu, Old Turkish to
Larry Clark, and Tocharian to Georges-Jean Pinault.

Contact details:SOAS Manichaean Dictionary project,
c/o Ancient India and Iran Trust, 23 Brooklands
Avenue, Cambridge CB2 2BG
Tel. +44 1223 566167
e-mail: ns5@soas.ac.uk (Nicholas Sims-Williams),
gm25@soas.ac.uk (Gunner Mikkelsen), fb2@soas.ac.uk
(Francois de Blois)

Click here for a shorter, illustrated description of
the project.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Fri Dec 19 12:38:22 2003
X-UIDL: 5756026a1f7573baeb0b0eaa38f3afca
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:32:41 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXRId-0005O9-Hk
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:32:39 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKV0b21994;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:31:00 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:31:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKV0b21988
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:31:00 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0033783875@ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:31:16 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020410bc090e60b2ee@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20031219201153.42184.qmail@web80702.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031219201153.42184.qmail@web80702.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:22:39 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 957
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Manichaean http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2544.pdf
Mandaean http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/mandaic.pdf
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Fri Dec 19 12:38:22 2003
X-UIDL: 7f6bbb1b8765d0f3f5b7806c65cc1462
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:33:54 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXRJp-0005QD-Ib
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:33:53 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKVdb22006;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:31:39 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:31:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKVdb22000;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:31:39 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 49BB840C97D; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:31:22 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE36028.6050605@qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:31:36 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Cc: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>,
   hebrew@unicode.org, Bob Pritchett <bob@logos.com>, CDWRobinson@aol.com,
   Mike_Cahill@sil.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <20031219201153.42184.qmail@web80702.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031219201153.42184.qmail@web80702.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 958
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 19/12/2003 12:11, Elaine Keown wrote:

>       Elaine Keown
>
>Dear Peter and everyone:
>
>Peter Kirk wrote:
>  
>
>>Actually I do have more to add, as there are more
>>Aramaic scripts than 
>>If we are including as "Aramaic" later
>>languages descended from Aramaic, I rather think we
>>need to add Mandaic, perhaps also Samaritan. 
>>And what about Osmanya and Manichaean? 
>>http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=950
>>links to more info.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm confused.  Samaritan Aramaic is written in their
>Samaritan script, Mandaic I don't know about.  
>
>Osmanya seems to be a script name for a script used
>for Somali.  Do you mean something else?  
>  
>

It seems I was wrong to include Osmanya in my list. But Mandaic script 
is certainly used by at least a small community for an Aramaic-based 
language, see http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=MYZ and 
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=MID.

>Manichaean is not in Ethnologue as a language name, as
>far as I can tell--I found it as a script name--script
>sort of close to Aramaic but used for Middle
>Persian--and for the religion of Mani.
>
>Manichaean script:  http://www.iranianlanguages.com/
>   midiranian/parthian.htm
>
>  
>
Well, this says that the Manichaean script was used for "non-Iranian 
languages such as Old Turkish", and the article you sent confirms that 
there are Manichaean texts in the Syriac (Aramaic) language. Perhaps I 
was leaping a bit too far to conclude that the Manichaean script was 
used for Aramaic texts, but it does seem at least possible.



-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Fri Dec 19 12:48:05 2003
X-UIDL: 68e228efe6a7da52ffa1a7b2cc68c921
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:44:40 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXRUE-0005ma-Hm
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:44:38 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKg0b25043;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:42:00 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:42:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKg0b25037
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:42:00 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 7B83940D756; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:41:44 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE36297.8070802@qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:41:59 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com> <3FE355D7.1050404@qaya.org> <p0602040cbc09081c3aff@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p0602040cbc09081c3aff@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 960
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 19/12/2003 11:57, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 11:47 -0800 2003-12-19, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> I see the serious problem with scripts like cuneiform and Egyptian 
>> hieroglyphics, and even with modern Latin transliterations. But if we 
>> do get into the situation in which there are various different 
>> 22-letter Semitic scripts encoded in Unicode, it would be sensible to 
>> fold these together in DUCET (see UTS #10 at 
>> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/) so that samekh-pe-resh (one 
>> spelling of the Aramaic for "book") is matched in the same way 
>> whether these letters are in Hebrew (script), Samaritan, Phoenician, 
>> proposed Aramaic, Mandaic or whatever, perhaps also Syriac. Or is 
>> there a good reason not to do this?
>
>
> Yes, there is. Scripts are not interfiled in the default table, and it 
> would be wrong to start doing so. If Semiticists need a special 
> tailored version that does it, they can make use of one. This idea 
> would not gly, I am sure.
>
The reason why I want to make it gly, I mean fly, is that these scripts 
are not actually separate scripts but are glyph variants or ciphers of 
one another. As such the only justification for encoding them separately 
is the requirements of the user communities or compatibility with 
pre-existing standards; and even this should be checked. (Michael, how 
would you react to a proposal from your Irish colleagues to propose as a 
separate script the Celtic-style glyphs often used in Ireland?) They 
should be folded together for searching in just the same way that black 
letter and Celtic-style Latin scripts should be folded together with the 
normal Latin alphabet, and that the variant Latin glyphs in the 
Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block are so folded.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Fri Dec 19 12:58:22 2003
X-UIDL: a06494d6f5116829983e2d8db61832d0
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:56:02 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXRfF-000676-E6
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:56:01 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKtAb25782;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:55:11 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:55:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.62])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJKtAb25776
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:55:10 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0033780651@ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:55:03 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020411bc091588603f@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FE36297.8070802@qaya.org>
References: <20031219193200.4205.qmail@web80703.mail.yahoo.com>
 <3FE355D7.1050404@qaya.org> <p0602040cbc09081c3aff@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FE36297.8070802@qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:54:56 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 961
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 12:41 -0800 2003-12-19, Peter Kirk wrote:

>The reason why I want to make it gly, I mean fly, is that these 
>scripts are not actually separate scripts but are glyph variants or 
>ciphers of one another.

I disagree.

>As such the only justification for encoding them separately is the 
>requirements of the user communities or compatibility with 
>pre-existing standards; and even this should be checked.

In the default table, scripts are not intermixed, and that is not 
going to change.

>(Michael, how would you react to a proposal from your Irish 
>colleagues to propose as a separate script the Celtic-style glyphs 
>often used in Ireland?)

I don't consider this the same thing at all. Phoenician and Hebrew 
are not the same script, even if there is a one-to-one relationship 
between their repertoires and names.

>They should be folded together for searching in just the same way 
>that black letter and Celtic-style Latin scripts should be folded 
>together with the normal Latin alphabet, and that the variant Latin 
>glyphs in the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block are so folded.

Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square 
Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Fri Dec 19 13:18:22 2003
X-UIDL: bb44c8fde067104bf876457a4bd97e5a
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:14:53 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXRxS-0006fZ-2H
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:14:50 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJLCnb27698;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:12:49 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:12:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJLCnb27692
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:12:49 -0500
Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1])
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA78097
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:12:47 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Received: from [212.235.76.140] (via account qsm.co.il)
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id QIK0wMQ2
	authenticated by POP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:12:37 -0700 (PST)
From: "Jony Rosenne" <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:12:33 +0200
Message-ID: <000001c3c674$d5bf83f0$0401c80a@QSM4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
In-Reply-To: <p0602040cbc09081c3aff@[192.168.0.2]>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-archive-position: 962
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

It is the same as CJK, these are just different shapes for the same letters.
But Unicode/ISO already decided against unification.

Jony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org 
> [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:57 PM
> To: hebrew@unicode.org
> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
> 
> 
> At 11:47 -0800 2003-12-19, Peter Kirk wrote:
> 
> >I see the serious problem with scripts like cuneiform and Egyptian
> >hieroglyphics, and even with modern Latin transliterations. But if 
> >we do get into the situation in which there are various different 
> >22-letter Semitic scripts encoded in Unicode, it would be sensible 
> >to fold these together in DUCET (see UTS #10 at 
> >http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/) so that samekh-pe-resh (one 
> >spelling of the Aramaic for "book") is matched in the same way 
> >whether these letters are in Hebrew (script), Samaritan, Phoenician, 
> >proposed Aramaic, Mandaic or whatever, perhaps also Syriac. Or is 
> >there a good reason not to do this?
> 
> Yes, there is. Scripts are not interfiled in the default table, and 
> it would be wrong to start doing so. If Semiticists need a special 
> tailored version that does it, they can make use of one. This idea 
> would not gly, I am sure.
> 
> >Even if this is not in DUCET, it is surely possible to do this as a
> >tailored collation, and even potentially to include cuneiform etc 
> >and Latin transliterations as collation contractions. So the 
> >collation algorithm could be made to do much of what Elaine wants.
> 
> I would maintain that such an ordered list would be hard to 
> read, at best.
> -- 
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com
> 
> 
> 






From - Fri Dec 19 13:28:22 2003
X-UIDL: fe4cb22828a73b6e317d83af10407d1f
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:22:17 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXS4X-0006rI-LN
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:22:09 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJLIDb27748;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:18:18 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:18:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJLI2b27742
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:18:13 -0500
Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1])
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA79179
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:17:30 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Received: from [212.235.76.140] (via account qsm.co.il)
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id iaK0EfQ2
	authenticated by POP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:17:26 -0700 (PST)
From: "Jony Rosenne" <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:17:21 +0200
Message-ID: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
In-Reply-To: <p06020411bc091588603f@[192.168.0.2]>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-archive-position: 963
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean



> -----Original Message-----
> From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org 
> [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:55 PM
> To: hebrew@unicode.org
> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
> 
> 
...

> Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square 
> Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it.

But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or Phoenician or
Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan.

Jony

> -- 
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com
> 
> 
> 






From - Fri Dec 19 13:58:22 2003
X-UIDL: 1b597643ecbba7920642da8f8abddf77
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:53:27 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXSYj-0008Cp-6i
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:53:21 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJLnnb29488;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:49:54 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:49:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJLnNb29482
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:49:43 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 78F4D406C6D; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:48:35 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE37242.808@qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:48:50 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jony Rosenne <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <000001c3c674$d5bf83f0$0401c80a@QSM4>
In-Reply-To: <000001c3c674$d5bf83f0$0401c80a@QSM4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 965
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 19/12/2003 13:12, Jony Rosenne wrote:

>It is the same as CJK, these are just different shapes for the same letters.
>But Unicode/ISO already decided against unification.
>
>Jony
>
>  
>
Has this been decided, formally and irreversibly, by Unicode and ISO? Or 
is it something which could be reversed if sufficient evidence is 
provided and pressure exerted? Note that I am not arguing for any 
attempt to change the situation with existing encoded scripts, i.e. 
Hebrew, Arabic and Syriac. Rather, I am arguing that new scripts should 
be accepted only if:

(a) they have features other than glyph shapes distinguishing them from 
existing scripts;
(b) there is a real demand from a community of users for a separate 
script allowing distinctions to be made in plain text.

I note that in http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf Michael 
Everson has written:

> Note that Jony Rosenne once suggested that we
> should not encode Phoenician because it is a
> glyph variant of Hebrew. This is not true,
> despite the one-to-one correspondence of
> character entities. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, for
> instance, where the Tetragrammaton is written
> with Palaeo-Hebrew letters, it is (in UCS
> encoding terms) the Phoenician script in which
> the Name is written.


This argument does not hold water. In those scrolls where the 
Tetragrammaton is written in palaeo-Hebrew script, it is clear that the 
meaning is identical to when it is written in the same script as the 
rest of the text. So this is not a plain text difference, but a script 
variant (possibly with some kind of cipher intent) which should be 
encoded with markup and not in Unicode. The same is true of  the more 
general use of palaeo-Hebrew script in Hasmonean times (and on modern 
Israeli coins), as glyph variants and a cipher for the more common 
Hebrew script of the time.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Fri Dec 19 14:18:22 2003
X-UIDL: d64e3f79d02d1c408019c001bd5ffdbc
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:16:08 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXSuh-0000QU-OP
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:16:03 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMCtb30688;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:55 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMCsb30682
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:55 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034433228@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:12:48 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020415bc092838c152@[192.168.0.2]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:12:18 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: "Philippe Verdy" <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> (by way of Michael Everson)
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 967
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: verdy_p@wanadoo.fr
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Jony Rosenne wrote:
>  Michael Everson
>  > Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square
>  > Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it.
>
>  But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or Phoenician or
>  Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan.

Do not mix script families (or genetic history) with their actual use.
Each time a script has evolved in a parallel way for other languages,
it has introduced its own distinctive features.

With your argument, we would have to unify the Latin, Greek and
Cyrillic scripts, because they have the same origin. Now move onto
their common Phenician origin and we have to unify it with Semitic
scripts... What disunified them was the writing direction, which was
not fixed in early scripts that allowed boustrophedon ordering,
and that had simpler designs with more independant glyphs, and the
way the various glyphs combine to create sometimes new letters.

For me two scripts that are different enough so that a text written
in one script will have imprecise matches in another, and will be
hardly recognizable by readers is a candidate to a separate encoding,
because it starts its own family of supplementary letters specific
to some families of languages needing these extensions.

Some of these extensions do not have equivalent in the origin
script, and sometimes (often?) their usage start to split with
distinct semantics (see for example the various forms of
the so-called "Tamazigh" script which is certainly better
represented as a family of scripts rather than a single script,
with as much differences between them than between Greek and
Cyrillic).




From - Fri Dec 19 14:18:23 2003
X-UIDL: af425207f2396033820d08524f54a7b6
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:17:34 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXSw5-0000Sh-0h
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:17:29 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMCpb30681;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:51 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMCob30674
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:12:51 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034433231@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:12:49 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020414bc0927a39e9f@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <000501c3c67a$099f2400$0401c80a@QSM4>
References: <000501c3c67a$099f2400$0401c80a@QSM4>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:12:45 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 966
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 23:49 +0200 2003-12-19, Jony Rosenne wrote:
>So what about Chinese, Japanese and Korean? Was it wrong to unify them?

That **isn't** the same thing.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com



.

From - Fri Dec 19 14:42:09 2003
X-UIDL: 8aa4ee3fb714cd7c2d403ad876ccc2d9
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:40:08 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXTHy-0001P0-Ky
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:40:06 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMcGb31003;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:38:16 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:38:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMcFb30997
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:38:15 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 5A5A1406BEB; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:37:57 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE37DD5.6090305@qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:38:13 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "\"Philippe Verdy\" (by way of Michael Everson)" <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <p06020415bc092838c152@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020415bc092838c152@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 970
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 19/12/2003 14:12, Philippe Verdy (by way of Michael Everson) wrote:

> Jony Rosenne wrote:
>
>>  Michael Everson
>>  > Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square
>>  > Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it.
>>
>>  But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or Phoenician or
>>  Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan.
>
>
> Do not mix script families (or genetic history) with their actual use.
> Each time a script has evolved in a parallel way for other languages,
> it has introduced its own distinctive features.

There are no distinctive features other than glyph shapes distinguishing 
Hebrew, Phoenician, Samaritan and "Early Aramaic" as  proposed in 
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2042.pdf - apart from the 
pointing added later to Hebrew and Samaritan.

>
> With your argument, we would have to unify the Latin, Greek and
> Cyrillic scripts, because they have the same origin. Now move onto
> their common Phenician origin and we have to unify it with Semitic
> scripts... What disunified them was the writing direction, which was
> not fixed in early scripts that allowed boustrophedon ordering,
> and that had simpler designs with more independant glyphs, and the
> way the various glyphs combine to create sometimes new letters.

Absolutely. For these reasons Latin, Greek and Cyrillic are distinct 
from Semitic scripts, even if we ignore glyph design differences. But 
these differences are not found between the four Semitic scripts I have 
listed.

>
> For me two scripts that are different enough so that a text written
> in one script will have imprecise matches in another, ...

This does not apply to the Semitic scripts, which have a precise one to 
one mapping.

> ... and will be
> hardly recognizable by readers is a candidate to a separate encoding,
> because it starts its own family of supplementary letters specific
> to some families of languages needing these extensions.

If unrecognisably different glyph shapes alone are sufficient to justify 
encoding separate scripts, I will propose several new scripts e.g. black 
letter Latin, italic Cyrillic, cursive modern Hebrew, Nastaliq Arabic 
(actually the evidence on the bidi list today gives a much stronger case 
for this being encoded as a separate script), three separate Syriac 
styles, etc etc. And then there are scripts which have been rejected as 
ciphers, on the basis that they differ from existing scripts only in 
glyph shape.


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Fri Dec 19 15:08:24 2003
X-UIDL: f729256866caa8d9bca42775fd8725ea
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:05:47 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXTgl-00029E-Sh
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:05:43 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMR2b30811;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:27:02 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:27:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBJMR2b30805
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:27:02 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0033789433@ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:27:18 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020412bc091ed98f43@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4>
References: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:26:51 +0000
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 969
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 23:17 +0200 2003-12-19, Jony Rosenne wrote:

>  > Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square
>>  Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it.
>
>But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or Phoenician or
>Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan.

It isn't, Jony. The history of the scripts is easily mapped as a tree 
with offshoots. We choose to encode certain nodes on that tree. If 
you look at N2311, a chart is given on page 4. We may at some stage 
choose to modify what we've sorted out, but at present we're working 
with that taxonomy.

On that chart, the oldest, Canaanite script isn't proposed for 
encoding, because it's not complete and it's not been properly 
deciphered. Its descendants, however split into three nodes. We plan 
to encode all of them:

Ugaritic (encoded), South Arabian, and Phoenician.

South Arabian has two descendants which are worth encoding:

Ethiopic (encoded) and North Arabic.

On the Phoenician branch things are rather more complex. At our 
current understanding, we propose to unify a number of its 
descendants in various ways. Firstly, it splits into two branches: 
Linear Hebrew and (more) Phoenician.

On the Linear Hebrew side its descendant Samaritan attained to a 
particular status, including modern typhographic status, which makes 
it a candidate for encoding. Palaeo-Hebrew on the other hand, is so 
like the original Phoenician that there seems to be no reason to 
differentiate the two.

NOTA BENE: In versions of the Torah where the Tetragrammaton is 
written in Palaeo-Hebrew, it is proposed that these be encoded with 
the Phoenician script.

Off of the Phoenician branch of that Proto-Phoenician we have two 
branches, one leads to Phoenician proper, and splits off into Punic 
which itself probably led to Tifinagh, but let's not go there now.

On the other side we have the Aramaic branch, which has two major 
splits: Aramaic, which has lots of descendants, and Square Hebrew > 
Hebrew as has been encoded.

It is proposed to encode that parent Aramaic, mother to so many 
scripts, as well as a rather large number of its descendants.

Unifications and disunifications have to be done with regard to this 
historical tree. Palaeo-Hebrew and Samaritan descend from Phoenician, 
and Hebrew descends from it by a different branch. Likewise, 
Nabataean, Syriac, Jewish Hebrew and Arabic descend from Aramaic. It 
would be wrong to unify all of this with Hebrew.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sat Dec 20 02:55:29 2003
X-UIDL: b9246ee6e72c139c5946c31adaa75234
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:24:38 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXUv5-0004Ly-Rx
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:24:35 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBK0KOb02569;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:20:24 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:20:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBK0Jmb02556
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:20:08 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id BAFD1408843; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:18:58 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE39584.8080909@qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:19:16 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4> <p06020412bc091ed98f43@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020412bc091ed98f43@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 971
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 19/12/2003 14:26, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 23:17 +0200 2003-12-19, Jony Rosenne wrote:
>
>>  > Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square
>>
>>>  Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it.
>>
>>
>> But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or Phoenician or
>> Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan.
>
>
> It isn't, Jony. The history of the scripts is easily mapped as a tree 
> with offshoots. We choose to encode certain nodes on that tree. If you 
> look at N2311, a chart is given on page 4. We may at some stage choose 
> to modify what we've sorted out, but at present we're working with 
> that taxonomy.


The choice of which nodes on the tree to encode seems arbitrary and is 
highly debatable. Thank you for accepting that it may be necessary to 
modify this at some stage. Why not now?

> ...
>
> NOTA BENE: In versions of the Torah where the Tetragrammaton is 
> written in Palaeo-Hebrew, it is proposed that these be encoded with 
> the Phoenician script.

Understood. But you don't seem to understand that this is a glyph 
variant, not a different script, comparable to the modern practices in 
translations of writing this name in small caps, italics etc. - 
variations which should be handled by markup, not in plain text.

>
> Off of the Phoenician branch of that Proto-Phoenician we have two 
> branches, one leads to Phoenician proper, and splits off into Punic 
> which itself probably led to Tifinagh, but let's not go there now.
>
> On the other side we have the Aramaic branch, which has two major 
> splits: Aramaic, which has lots of descendants, and Square Hebrew > 
> Hebrew as has been encoded.
>
> It is proposed to encode that parent Aramaic, mother to so many 
> scripts, as well as a rather large number of its descendants.


This is a proposal which has not yet been accepted. Jony, Elaine and I 
at least oppose it.

One specific problem is that this putative parent Aramaic has a very 
doubtful status. You don't give any examples of this script in N2311. 
The only real data for what you propose comes from N2042, where I read:

> The Early Aramaic block should be used for
> Late Aramaic (especially papyri), Palmyrene, and Nabataean, Mandaic
> and their immediate precursors and successors.
> The order shown in the accompanying chart matches the order of the
> Early Phoenician block and the shapes shown there are in the Palmyrene
> style.

But it seems from N2311 that Palmyrene, Nabataean and Mandaic are to be 
encoded separately. (Mandaic I can accept because of its modern use, 
like Samaritan.) So what is left for your Aramaic? It's beginning to 
look like the emperor's new clothes!

>
> Unifications and disunifications have to be done with regard to this 
> historical tree. Palaeo-Hebrew and Samaritan descend from Phoenician, 
> and Hebrew descends from it by a different branch. Likewise, 
> Nabataean, Syriac, Jewish Hebrew and Arabic descend from Aramaic. It 
> would be wrong to unify all of this with Hebrew.


No one has suggested unifying Syriac or Arabic with these others, any 
more than they have suggested unifying Latin, Greek, Cyrillic and 
perhaps Brahmic scripts with them. But we have presented a strong case 
for unification of several of these other scripts, and we expect it to 
be taken seriously and not rejected with a simple "we are doing 
something else".


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sat Dec 20 02:55:32 2003
X-UIDL: e1a04578ffdf3a9be40a09669a7ae331
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:05:10 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXVYK-0005Kk-Rr
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:05:08 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBK12Lb03629;
	Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:02:21 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:02:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBK12Ib03623
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:02:20 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0033795618@ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:02:26 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020417bc09485f4a9c@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FE39584.8080909@qaya.org>
References: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4>
 <p06020412bc091ed98f43@[192.168.0.2]> <3FE39584.8080909@qaya.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:01:58 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 972
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

>The choice of which nodes on the tree to encode seems arbitrary and 
>is highly debatable.

It may be.

>Thank you for accepting that it may be necessary to modify this at 
>some stage. Why not now?

Frankley, because we have other things to work on, and there are no 
specific proposals that we have to process/accept/reject regarding 
what's on the Roadmap at present. There is NO URGENCY to deal with 
this at present.

>>NOTA BENE: In versions of the Torah where the Tetragrammaton is 
>>written in Palaeo-Hebrew, it is proposed that these be encoded with 
>>the Phoenician script.
>
>Understood. But you don't seem to understand that this is a glyph 
>variant, not a different script, comparable to the modern practices 
>in translations of writing this name in small caps, italics etc. - 
>variations which should be handled by markup, not in plain text.

I disagree. Palaeo-Hebrew glyphs derive from Phoenician by a 
different path than that which led to Hebrew. Samaritan derived from 
a similar path. Where we make unifications, it should be based on 
historical grounds.

>>It is proposed to encode that parent Aramaic, mother to so many 
>>scripts, as well as a rather large number of its descendants.
>
>This is a proposal which has not yet been accepted. Jony, Elaine and 
>I at least oppose it.

Understood.

>One specific problem is that this putative parent Aramaic has a very 
>doubtful status. You don't give any examples of this script in 
>N2311. The only real data for what you propose comes from N2042, 
>where I read:
>
>>The Early Aramaic block should be used for
>>Late Aramaic (especially papyri), Palmyrene, and Nabataean, Mandaic
>>and their immediate precursors and successors.
>>The order shown in the accompanying chart matches the order of the
>>Early Phoenician block and the shapes shown there are in the Palmyrene
>>style.
>
>But it seems from N2311 that Palmyrene, Nabataean and Mandaic are to 
>be encoded separately. (Mandaic I can accept because of its modern 
>use, like Samaritan.) So what is left for your Aramaic? It's 
>beginning to look like the emperor's new clothes!

N2311 is based on later data than N2042 was, which, in fairness, 
refers to a document published six years prior.

>>Unifications and disunifications have to be done with regard to 
>>this historical tree. Palaeo-Hebrew and Samaritan descend from 
>>Phoenician, and Hebrew descends from it by a different branch. 
>>Likewise, Nabataean, Syriac, Jewish Hebrew and Arabic descend from 
>>Aramaic. It would be wrong to unify all of this with Hebrew.
>
>No one has suggested unifying Syriac or Arabic with these others, 
>any more than they have suggested unifying Latin, Greek, Cyrillic 
>and perhaps Brahmic scripts with them. But we have presented a 
>strong case for unification of several of these other scripts, and 
>we expect it to be taken seriously and not rejected with a simple 
>"we are doing something else".

I don't find a "strong case" for such a unification to have been proposed.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sat Dec 20 02:55:41 2003
X-UIDL: aaa143e0ec5f83b0a19c33983ca35e7c
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:44:24 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXbmh-0007PV-1T
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:44:23 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBK7g9b26716;
	Sat, 20 Dec 2003 02:42:09 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 02:42:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBK7g8b26710
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 02:42:09 -0500
Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1])
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA03702
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:42:06 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Received: from [212.235.74.225] (via account qsm.co.il)
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id Ix00kxD0
	authenticated by POP; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:41:56 -0700 (PST)
From: "Jony Rosenne" <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:41:53 +0200
Message-ID: <000001c3c6cc$c0a85070$0401c80a@QSM4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
In-Reply-To: <p06020412bc091ed98f43@[192.168.0.2]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBK7g8b26710
X-archive-position: 974
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael,

This is the history of the scripts as fonts, not of the scripts as writing
systems.

Square Hebrew and Palaeo-Hebrew are different in shapes only (this includes
the final shape), and as you said Palaeo-Hebrew and Phoenician are the same
script.

Cursive Hebrew - modern handwriting and Rashi - are not related to Square
Hebrew according to the methodology you describe, but I hope no one proposes
to make them a separate script.

Jony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org 
> [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 12:27 AM
> To: hebrew@unicode.org
> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
> 
> 
> At 23:17 +0200 2003-12-19, Jony Rosenne wrote:
> 
> >  > Samaritan and Phoenician are not font variants of Hebrew/Square
> >>  Hebrew/Jewish or whatever else you want to call it.
> >
> >But Square Hebrew IS a font variant of Ancient Hebrew or 
> Phoenician or 
> >Canaanite, whatever you want to call it, and so is Samaritan.
> 
> It isn't, Jony. The history of the scripts is easily mapped as a tree 
> with offshoots. We choose to encode certain nodes on that tree. If 
> you look at N2311, a chart is given on page 4. We may at some stage 
> choose to modify what we've sorted out, but at present we're working 
> with that taxonomy.
> 
> On that chart, the oldest, Canaanite script isn't proposed for 
> encoding, because it's not complete and it's not been properly 
> deciphered. Its descendants, however split into three nodes. We plan 
> to encode all of them:
> 
> Ugaritic (encoded), South Arabian, and Phoenician.
> 
> South Arabian has two descendants which are worth encoding:
> 
> Ethiopic (encoded) and North Arabic.
> 
> On the Phoenician branch things are rather more complex. At our 
> current understanding, we propose to unify a number of its 
> descendants in various ways. Firstly, it splits into two branches: 
> Linear Hebrew and (more) Phoenician.
> 
> On the Linear Hebrew side its descendant Samaritan attained to a 
> particular status, including modern typhographic status, which makes 
> it a candidate for encoding. Palaeo-Hebrew on the other hand, is so 
> like the original Phoenician that there seems to be no reason to 
> differentiate the two.
> 
> NOTA BENE: In versions of the Torah where the Tetragrammaton is 
> written in Palaeo-Hebrew, it is proposed that these be encoded with 
> the Phoenician script.
> 
> Off of the Phoenician branch of that Proto-Phoenician we have two 
> branches, one leads to Phoenician proper, and splits off into Punic 
> which itself probably led to Tifinagh, but let's not go there now.
> 
> On the other side we have the Aramaic branch, which has two major 
> splits: Aramaic, which has lots of descendants, and Square Hebrew > 
> Hebrew as has been encoded.
> 
> It is proposed to encode that parent Aramaic, mother to so many 
> scripts, as well as a rather large number of its descendants.
> 
> Unifications and disunifications have to be done with regard to this 
> historical tree. Palaeo-Hebrew and Samaritan descend from Phoenician, 
> and Hebrew descends from it by a different branch. Likewise, 
> Nabataean, Syriac, Jewish Hebrew and Arabic descend from Aramaic. It 
> would be wrong to unify all of this with Hebrew.
> -- 
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com
> 
> 






From - Sat Dec 20 03:25:23 2003
X-UIDL: 4b61a952f93ca0183de9969137fb87a8
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:22:35 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AXfBn-0003Nx-5Q
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:22:31 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBKBHUb29531;
	Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:17:35 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:17:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBKBGnb29525
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:17:12 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 1CA7240E083; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:15:50 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE42F5B.1090906@qaya.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 03:15:39 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <000101c3c675$7eb6d350$0401c80a@QSM4> <p06020412bc091ed98f43@[192.168.0.2]> <3FE39584.8080909@qaya.org> <p06020417bc09485f4a9c@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020417bc09485f4a9c@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 975
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBKBHUb29531
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 19/12/2003 17:01, Michael Everson wrote:

> ...
> Frankley, because we have other things to work on, and there are no=20
> specific proposals that we have to process/accept/reject regarding=20
> what's on the Roadmap at present. There is NO URGENCY to deal with=20
> this at present.
>
Agreed. The only problem is that having the Aramaic script in the=20
roadmap at all, with no question marks to indicate that it is tentative,=20
is confusing to those people who need to encode Aramaic texts now and=20
want to use Hebrew script for it, but find confusing and inconsistent=20
suggestions on the Unicode site that they should not do so.

> ...
>
>> But it seems from N2311 that Palmyrene, Nabataean and Mandaic are to=20
>> be encoded separately. (Mandaic I can accept because of its modern=20
>> use, like Samaritan.) So what is left for your Aramaic? It's=20
>> beginning to look like the emperor's new clothes!
>
>
> N2311 is based on later data than N2042 was, which, in fairness,=20
> refers to a document published six years prior.
>
If the proposal N2042 referred to in the roadmap is no longer current,=20
and the glyphs proposed in it are actually Palmyrene rather than=20
"Aramaic" proper (whatever that might be), then it would be better not=20
to reference this proposal in the roadmap and to revert Aramaic to the=20
status "=BFText between question marks? indicates scripts for which=20
detailed proposals have not yet been written." You might want to=20
reference N2042 under "Palmyrene" in the SMP roadmap as that seems to be=20
what is proposed in it.

> ...
> I don't find a "strong case" for such a unification to have been=20
> proposed.


Well, perhaps more accurately, a strong preference for unification has=20
been put forward by at least part of the user community together with=20
reasonable arguments that this is a sensible thing to do.

--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 22 04:34:58 2003
X-UIDL: 03421acb79a1ff449027ea1baa7dc68a
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:29:56 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYPC4-0002At-H1
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:29:52 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMCRKR32002;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:27:20 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:27:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMCRJR31982;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:27:19 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id EDC7A40DE77; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:27:08 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE6E323.2090400@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 04:27:15 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <DBEHLPNMAJJMJEMIABEPCECBCHAA.verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> <p06020405bc0ba517bc02@[192.168.0.2]> <3FE6038C.8070808@qaya.org> <p06020407bc0bbc452abd@[192.168.0.2]> <3FE61C40.2050503@qaya.org> <p0602040bbc0bdfc47c78@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p0602040bbc0bdfc47c78@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 983
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 21/12/2003 16:01, Michael Everson wrote:

> ...
> I'm not interested in worrying about these bits of the Roadmap right 
> now. ... This sniping, even when nice, isn't doing you any good, nor 
> me. Can we drop this for a while, please?
>
Understood. Last night I was angry about an offlist reply and allowed my 
emotions to spill over on to the list. Sorry.

But this matter is too important to be forgotten. And so I have decided 
to make a formal submission to the UTC about this one, via 
http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html. Here is the text of my 
submission. I do not intend this to start further discussion on the 
Unicode and Hebrew lists, but if others wish to discuss it I will do so.

=====================

The Roadmap to the BMP (http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/bmp/) needs a 
correction. The current situation is confusing to scholars of Aramaic 
and other ancient Semitic languages. Aramaic is listed as one of the 
"scripts for which proposals have been formally submitted to the UTC or 
to WG2. There is generally a link to the formal proposal." But the 
formal proposal to which it is linked, 
http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2042.pdf, is not for the generic 
Aramaic alphabet described in 
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf, but for the Palmyrene 
style or script which is listed as a separate script in N2311 and is 
roadmapped in the SMP. There is no formal proposal for the generic 
Aramaic alphabet, and so the status of Aramaic in the roadmap should be 
changed to "scripts for which detailed proposals have not yet been 
written", and the link to N2042 removed. N2042 might be listed instead 
as a proposal for Palmyrene.

The situation is highly confusing to scholars of Aramaic because there 
is no clear definition of what script is intended to be the roadmapped 
Aramaic. The voluminous literature in classical and modern Aramaic is 
regularly printed either in the Hebrew script, which is known to 
scholars as the Aramaic square script, or in the Syriac script; most of 
it was originally written in one of these scripts. Other scripts are 
used by small communities or for special purposes, but these are either 
already in Unicode (Latin, Cyrillic etc) or separately roadmapped 
(Samaritan, Mandaic etc). Otherwise there is only a very small corpus of 
inscriptional, papyrus etc material, mostly written with the same 
alphabet as the Aramaic square script but with a variety of glyph styles 
and shapes. When not working with facsimiles, scholars regularly 
transcribe these texts into unpointed Aramaic square script, i.e. 
unpointed Hebrew script. (See for example "The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic 
Papyri", edited by E.G. Kraeling, Yale UP 1953, which gives facsimiles 
and square script transcriptions of the Elephantine papyri.) There is 
not and never has been a generic form of the Aramaic script distinct 
from the square script which is identical to the Hebrew script (with its 
Unicode reference glyphs).

There is no evidence of complex script behaviour (except that these are 
all RTL scripts) or of mappings between these styles which are not one 
to one.

There seems to be no evidence of a desire by any user community for 
separate encoding either of a historic Aramaic script or of variants not 
in modern use such as Palmyrene and Nabataean. Rather, the user 
community is confused by the current roadmaps which seem to undermine 
the current scholarly practice of using Aramaic square script for all 
ancient (pre-Christian) Aramaic texts. This seems to be a case of 
unnecessary multiplication of scripts, not requested by scholars, when 
in fact there are merely glyph variations.

In view of this, I call for a review of the roadmaps and in particular 
of the status of the Aramaic, Palmyrene, Nabataean, Elymaic and Hatran 
scripts. Serious consideration should be given to unifying these scripts 
with the Hebrew script, of which they appear to be glyph variants. The 
separate status of Phoenician may also need to be reconsidered. Note 
that I am calling for a review only of scripts listed in N2311 as not in 
current use.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 22 04:55:09 2003
X-UIDL: 23b0272ad1ce5693ee4a907192e8c002
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:53:13 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYPYa-0003Fu-5r
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:53:08 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMCnTR02561;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:49:34 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:49:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMCn8R02554;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:49:29 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.48]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0033924798@ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net>;
 Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:49:00 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020402bc0c96d68e6f@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FE6E323.2090400@qaya.org>
References: <DBEHLPNMAJJMJEMIABEPCECBCHAA.verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>
 <p06020405bc0ba517bc02@[192.168.0.2]> <3FE6038C.8070808@qaya.org>
 <p06020407bc0bbc452abd@[192.168.0.2]> <3FE61C40.2050503@qaya.org>
 <p0602040bbc0bdfc47c78@[192.168.0.2]> <3FE6E323.2090400@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:48:31 +0000
To: unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 984
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 04:27 -0800 2003-12-22, Peter Kirk wrote:

>In view of this, I call for a review of the roadmaps and in 
>particular of the status of the Aramaic, Palmyrene, Nabataean, 
>Elymaic and Hatran scripts.

We heard you the last time, Peter. We know that this is a concern of yours.

>Serious consideration should be given to unifying these scripts with 
>the Hebrew script, of which they appear to be glyph variants.

To you.

>The separate status of Phoenician may also need to be reconsidered.

Absolutely not. Phoenician is the mother of these scripts and Greek 
and Old Italic besides. Greek and Old Italic did *not* descend from 
"Hebrew", and it is pernicious to go on suggesting that Phoenician 
should be unified with Hebrew. If you want, as some scholars do, to 
write Phoenician in Hebrew script, go right ahead. That is a 
perfectly reasonable transliteration choice. Nothing prevents you 
from doing it. But historical realities and relationships *do* have 
some relation to the content of the Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 
10646. And that may include encoding things that you won't use, 
though *others* might.

>Note that I am calling for a review only of scripts listed in N2311 
>as not in current use.

Please do not force us to undertake this review NOW. We do not have 
the resources to do so effectively and already this thread has taken 
up far too much time and energy. We have explained to you that 
nothing actionable is happening with any of this material at present. 
How many times do I have to say that?
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Mon Dec 22 06:25:09 2003
X-UIDL: 932c219194cdd085c1cbd885595369dd
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:15:26 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYQq8-0005qU-9P
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:15:20 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMECoR07143;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:12:50 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:12:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMECkR07137;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:12:47 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id E406F40D6FE; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:12:36 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE6FBDD.1090900@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:12:45 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <DBEHLPNMAJJMJEMIABEPCECBCHAA.verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> <p06020405bc0ba517bc02@[192.168.0.2]> <3FE6038C.8070808@qaya.org> <p06020407bc0bbc452abd@[192.168.0.2]> <3FE61C40.2050503@qaya.org> <p0602040bbc0bdfc47c78@[192.168.0.2]> <3FE6E323.2090400@qaya.org> <p06020402bc0c96d68e6f@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020402bc0c96d68e6f@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 985
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 22/12/2003 04:48, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 04:27 -0800 2003-12-22, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> In view of this, I call for a review of the roadmaps and in 
>> particular of the status of the Aramaic, Palmyrene, Nabataean, 
>> Elymaic and Hatran scripts.
>
>
> We heard you the last time, Peter. We know that this is a concern of 
> yours.


I have been told before that if I want serious action to take place I 
should not rely on these lists, but should submit a formal request via 
the feedback form. That is why I have done so.

> ...
>
>> The separate status of Phoenician may also need to be reconsidered.
>
>
> Absolutely not. Phoenician is the mother of these scripts and Greek 
> and Old Italic besides. Greek and Old Italic did *not* descend from 
> "Hebrew", and it is pernicious to go on suggesting that Phoenician 
> should be unified with Hebrew. ...


This argument is irrelevant. Greek etc are of course separate scripts 
and no one is suggesting unification here. Cyrillic and Coptic descend 
from an ancient form of Greek, not from modern Greek, and the modern 
small Greek letters are of more recent origin, but that is not an 
argument for disunifying ancient and modern Greek.

But note that my main concern at present is with Aramaic and its 
variants, not Phoenician.

> ...
>
>> Note that I am calling for a review only of scripts listed in N2311 
>> as not in current use.
>
>
> Please do not force us to undertake this review NOW. We do not have 
> the resources to do so effectively and already this thread has taken 
> up far too much time and energy. We have explained to you that nothing 
> actionable is happening with any of this material at present. How many 
> times do I have to say that?


Maybe nothing is happening, but something should be happening, for the 
reasons described in my submission that scholars are confused. I will 
continue to call for the errors to be corrected until they are 
corrected, or at least until there is a recognition that there is an 
issue here which requires proper attention when time permits. So, if you 
don't want to do this review NOW, at least say that you are planning to 
do this review and that pending the review the status of these 
roadmapped scripts is uncertain.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 22 09:46:58 2003
X-UIDL: 2141a8af98399d9cd4cb7b8c796f3a0f
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:46:20 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYU8G-00047S-S9
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:46:16 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMHcBR23664;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:38:11 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:38:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from izanami (ip-216-36-75-240.dsl.sjc.megapath.net [216.36.75.240])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBMHc9R23658
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:38:09 -0500
Message-Id: <200312221738.hBMHc9R23658@unicode.org>
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
In-Reply-To: <p06020402bc0c96d68e6f@[192.168.0.2]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:38:02 -0800
From: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
received: by Apple.Mailer (2.95.2)
X-archive-position: 986
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: rick@unicode.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Peter,

I have received, and will put into the UTC doc register, your Error Report  
regarding the roadmap.

> Maybe nothing is happening, but something should be happening, for the
> reasons described in my submission that scholars are confused.

Nothing is happening on the particular roadmapped scripts of concern to  
you mainly because nobody has time or funding to do anything on them. The  
small funding available for script work is being spent elsewhere on more  
immediate needs. We also haven't seen much spark of scholarly interest yet.

> ... I call for a review of the roadmaps and in particular of
> the status of the Aramaic, Palmyrene, Nabataean, Elymaic and Hatran scripts.
> Serious consideration should be given to unifying these scripts with the
> Hebrew script, of which they appear to be glyph variants.

You can't just "call for a review" and expect anything to happen. Please  
dcument your opinions and document some facts. If you have a different  
model of Aramaic, Phoenician, and related scripts, then you should write up  
a formal paper with appropriate references, evidence, and supporting  
documentation, and explain what you think is an appropriate model, and get  
some scholarly buy-in from people who study those scripts. Submit that to  
UTC for discussion.

	Rick




From - Mon Dec 22 10:05:09 2003
X-UIDL: 65bd7294f76932bacd4d268a330c3929
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:03:38 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYUP4-0004eU-2d
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:03:38 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMHxqR26553;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:59:52 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:59:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMHxpR26540;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:59:51 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id D6D09412E1F; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:59:37 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE73115.8080101@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:59:49 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <200312221738.hBMHc9R23658@unicode.org>
In-Reply-To: <200312221738.hBMHc9R23658@unicode.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 987
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 22/12/2003 09:38, Rick McGowan wrote:

>Peter,
>
>I have received, and will put into the UTC doc register, your Error Report  
>regarding the roadmap.
>
>  
>
Thank you.

>>Maybe nothing is happening, but something should be happening, for the
>>reasons described in my submission that scholars are confused.
>>    
>>
>
>Nothing is happening on the particular roadmapped scripts of concern to  
>you mainly because nobody has time or funding to do anything on them. The  
>small funding available for script work is being spent elsewhere on more  
>immediate needs. We also haven't seen much spark of scholarly interest yet.
>
>  
>
Well, the scholarly interest I have seen is negative. No one is 
interested in these scripts being standardised because everyone is happy 
to use Hebrew script for them. I would anticipate that that situation 
will continue indefinitely, and that if after some years more concrete 
proposals are put forward they will meet strong resistance because they 
will require re-encoding of many existing texts (rather than relatively 
few as today). That scenario isn't a problem for me. There is confusion 
among scholars at present, but I shall simply advise them to use Hebrew 
script and where required variant fonts.

>>... I call for a review of the roadmaps and in particular of
>>the status of the Aramaic, Palmyrene, Nabataean, Elymaic and Hatran scripts.
>>Serious consideration should be given to unifying these scripts with the
>>Hebrew script, of which they appear to be glyph variants.
>>    
>>
>
>You can't just "call for a review" and expect anything to happen. Please  
>dcument your opinions and document some facts. If you have a different  
>model of Aramaic, Phoenician, and related scripts, then you should write up  
>a formal paper with appropriate references, evidence, and supporting  
>documentation, and explain what you think is an appropriate model, and get  
>some scholarly buy-in from people who study those scripts. Submit that to  
>UTC for discussion.
>
>  
>
Understood. Presumably you mean something like N2311 which seems to have 
been the input for the existing roadmap. I will consider whether there 
is any need to do this. Perhaps others on this list would like to help 
me with this task, which I cannot do alone.

>	Rick
>  
>
-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 22 10:25:09 2003
X-UIDL: ef016108387fe2decc33a46a5a5f04f2
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:19:18 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYUeB-00051U-6X
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:19:15 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMICaR28307;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:12:36 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:12:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from izanami (ip-216-36-75-240.dsl.sjc.megapath.net [216.36.75.240])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBMICZR28301
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:12:35 -0500
Message-Id: <200312221812.hBMICZR28301@unicode.org>
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
In-Reply-To: <200312221738.hBMHc9R23658@unicode.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:12:30 -0800
From: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
received: by Apple.Mailer (2.95.2)
X-archive-position: 988
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: rick@unicode.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

> if after some years more concrete
> proposals are put forward they will meet strong resistance because they
> will require re-encoding of many existing texts

Require? I think you're over-reacting and misconstruing what an encoding  
means. Nobody would *require* you to use such encodings for any particular  
purpose. Standardizing something doesn't *mandate* its use.

If you want to transliterate and regularize your various epigraphic stuff  
into square Hebrew for whatever purposes you have, then fine. Do what you  
like.

	Rick



.

From - Mon Dec 22 11:15:09 2003
X-UIDL: 36cc1ced0aeecfc560957157d1e9685e
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:11:57 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYVT4-0006ji-HC
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:11:50 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMJ8DR03703;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:08:13 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:08:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMJ8CR03632;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:08:12 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id C214C4075F8; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:07:52 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE74115.4040303@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:08:05 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <200312221812.hBMICZR28301@unicode.org>
In-Reply-To: <200312221812.hBMICZR28301@unicode.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 989
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 22/12/2003 10:12, Rick McGowan wrote:

>>if after some years more concrete
>>proposals are put forward they will meet strong resistance because they
>>will require re-encoding of many existing texts
>>    
>>
>
>Require? I think you're over-reacting and misconstruing what an encoding  
>means. Nobody would *require* you to use such encodings for any particular  
>purpose. Standardizing something doesn't *mandate* its use.
>
>If you want to transliterate and regularize your various epigraphic stuff  
>into square Hebrew for whatever purposes you have, then fine. Do what you  
>like.
>
>	Rick
>  
>
Well, let's say these proposals will meet the same kind of strong 
resistance, for the same reasons, as has been given for example to 
suggestions that some of the existing Hebrew characters be deprecated 
and replaced by new characters with the correct properties. While indeed 
no one would be required to re-encode texts in that scenario, they would 
be expected to do so if they wanted to conform fully to the standard, 
and might need to do so for proper software and font support. It is in 
that sense that you should understand my use of "require".

Quite frankly, what will the purpose be of encoding a new script if 
users of it are already well served by an existing script and have no 
interest in changing what they are already doing?

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 23 03:09:42 2003
X-UIDL: b69010af1a4928ace99254a80bd3f5db
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:33:23 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYbQJ-0001WF-1U
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:33:23 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBN1RqR16011;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:27:52 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:27:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from priv-edtnes46.telusplanet.net (defout.telus.net [199.185.220.240])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBN1RpR16004;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:27:51 -0500
Received: from Sophia.tiro.com ([66.183.172.245])
          by priv-edtnes46.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP
          id <20031223012745.FZMB1926.priv-edtnes46.telusplanet.net@Sophia.tiro.com>;
          Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:27:45 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.1.20031222172454.02d3be40@pop3.portal.ca>
X-Sender: tiro@pop3.portal.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:27:30 -0800
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Cc: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>, hebrew@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <3FE74115.4040303@qaya.org>
References: <200312221812.hBMICZR28301@unicode.org>
 <200312221812.hBMICZR28301@unicode.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 992
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: tiro@tiro.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

As a point of interest, does anyone know exactly what script or what form 
of script was in mind for 'Aramaic' on the roadmap? I am confused, because 
it isn't at all obvious what this would be.

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_





From - Tue Dec 23 03:09:48 2003
X-UIDL: 3244c6ec6854edb799e9efe26238be52
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:33:36 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYcMZ-0003J1-3z
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:33:35 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBN2TXR23432;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:29:34 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:29:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from izanami (ip-216-36-75-240.dsl.sjc.megapath.net [216.36.75.240])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBN2TXR23426;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:29:33 -0500
Message-Id: <200312230229.hBN2TXR23426@unicode.org>
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Cc: jameskass@att.net
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:29:28 -0800
From: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
mime-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v95.2)
content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
received: by Apple.Mailer (2.95.2)
X-archive-position: 993
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: rick@unicode.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBN2TXR23432
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

This appeared on the Unicode list, but is more pertinent here. I would =20
encourage peole here to answer it here, not there.

James: if you're interested in subbing to the Hebrew list, it requires th=
e =20
usual incantation: mail to ecartis@unicode.org with "subscribe hebrew" in=
 =20
the subject line.

	Rick

Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: jameskass@att.net
> Date: 2003-12-22 21:16:48 -0800
> Subject: Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
> Cc: unicode@unicode.org
>
> ..
> Quoting from:
> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=3D1308&letter=3DA
>
> <quote>
> ....  In the letter =D7=9E the original bent stem was curved upward sti=
ll
> more until it reached the upper horizontal stroke, so that the
> final Mem to-day has the form =D7=9D. The Palmyrene script possesses
> a final Nun with a lengthened stem; the Nabatean contains similarly
> final Kaph, Nun, =E1=BA=92ade, and Shin, and further a closed final Mem
> and final He. ...
> <end quote>
>
> So, apparently we have contextual forms which differ a bit between
> scripts.  (Hebrew has final KAF, MEM, NUN, PE, and TSADI.)
>
> ***
>
> If ancient Hebrew and modern Hebrew were the same script, we
> wouldn't need the modifiers, we could just say "Hebrew" and
> everyone would know what we were talking about.
>
> ***
>
> The opening line from the Moabite Stone (Mesha Stele) could be
> expressed as "ANK MSO BN KMSMLD MLK MAB", but that's not
> a compelling argument in favor of unifying Ph=C5=93nician and Latin.
> Likewise, the fact that some members of the user communities
> often transcribe such inscriptions into modern Hebrew is not
> a compelling argument in favor of unifying ancient and modern
> Hebrew.
>
> ***
>
> If it's perfectly acceptable to write old Aramaic using modern
> Hebrew glyphs, would the converse also be true?
>
> In other words, would it be perfectly acceptable to use old Aramaic
> glyphs along with cantillation marks and modern Hebrew points to
> represent the Bible?  Or, would it be a travesty to do so?
>
> ***
>
> If referring generically to many of the Indic scripts won't float
> your boat, suppose we consider the Philippine scripts.  Some of
> these are arguably glyph variants of each other, yet they
> were not unified.  (Well, the punctuation was unified.)
>
> ***
>
> Referring to the 2311.PDF document, it should be noted that the
> phrase "Further research is required" is used twice in the short
> section on Aramaic.  Michael Everson's submission doesn't strike
> me as "by gosh and by golly - this is how we're going to do it",
> but rather seems to be a preliminary report offering guidelines
> derived from respected sources.
>
> ***
>
> Ideally, input would be solicited from members of the user
> communities who have read Daniels and Bright (as well as other
> germaine publications) and who know something about computer
> encoding and the Unicode Standard.  (smile)  Rara avis.
>
> Best regards,
>
> James Kass
> ..




From - Tue Dec 23 04:39:16 2003
X-UIDL: e8629366b009b5f6fc9a246c58bf76c2
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:38:06 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYlnY-0004aY-Tk
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:38:04 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNCXER06628;
	Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:33:14 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:33:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNCXER06622
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:33:14 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id A3EB9407257; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:33:05 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE83609.4050007@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:33:13 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <200312221812.hBMICZR28301@unicode.org> <200312221812.hBMICZR28301@unicode.org> <5.2.1.1.1.20031222172454.02d3be40@pop3.portal.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20031222172454.02d3be40@pop3.portal.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 994
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 22/12/2003 17:27, John Hudson wrote:

> As a point of interest, does anyone know exactly what script or what 
> form of script was in mind for 'Aramaic' on the roadmap? I am 
> confused, because it isn't at all obvious what this would be.
>
>
I am confused too. The roadmap refers to a proposal with Palmyrene 
glyphs, but Palmyrene is now separately roadmapped.


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 23 04:59:17 2003
X-UIDL: c1d5b88d44d8c8ecc81de55d54e997d0
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:57:46 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYm6Z-00057T-Bb
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:57:43 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNCl1R07059;
	Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:47:06 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:47:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNCkZR07048;
	Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:46:56 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 14A6640880D; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:45:56 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE8390B.5070108@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:46:03 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jameskass@att.net
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org, unicode@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <122320030215.13854.2973@att.net>
In-Reply-To: <122320030215.13854.2973@att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 995
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBNCl1R07059
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 22/12/2003 18:15, jameskass@att.net wrote:

>.
>Quoting from:
>http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=3D1308&letter=3DA
>
><quote>
>...  In the letter =D7=9E the original bent stem was curved upward still=
=20
>more until it reached the upper horizontal stroke, so that the=20
>final Mem to-day has the form =D7=9D. The Palmyrene script possesses=20
>a final Nun with a lengthened stem; the Nabatean contains similarly=20
>final Kaph, Nun, =E1=BA=92ade, and Shin, and further a closed final Mem=20
>and final He. ...
><end quote>
>
>So, apparently we have contextual forms which differ a bit between
>scripts.  (Hebrew has final KAF, MEM, NUN, PE, and TSADI.)
>
> =20
>
Note also that "the Palmyrene script ... in essence is the same as the=20
Hebrew square script". But this article dates from 1901, and huge=20
quantities of relevant texts have been discovered in the intervening=20
century.

--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 23 09:33:23 2003
X-UIDL: 659a6b90a4ca0dcbc740cf234c554b4e
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:33:08 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYqP2-0005S9-1w
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:33:04 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNHSqR08475;
	Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:28:52 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:28:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNHSpR08469;
	Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:28:51 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 489EB407D79; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:28:37 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE87B50.8000201@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:28:48 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: Unicode List <unicode@unicode.org>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <00ae01c3c8f7$c7bc2760$da898051@KUNKHYAB> <122320030215.13854.2973@att.net> <00ae01c3c8f7$c7bc2760$da898051@KUNKHYAB> <5.2.1.1.1.20031223083607.026b0700@pop3.portal.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20031223083607.026b0700@pop3.portal.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 997
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 23/12/2003 08:39, John Hudson wrote:

> At 03:59 AM 12/23/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> The roadmapped "Aramaic" script, despite being proposed for the BMP, 
>> is not a script in modern use. It is a historic script from around 
>> 2500 years ago which survives only in a few very diverse 
>> inscriptional and papyrus fragments (including those already 
>> separately roadmapped as Palmyrene etc), and in texts which have been 
>> transmitted in the slightly later variant which is called Aramaic 
>> square script or (by Unicode) Hebrew script.
>
>
> It sounds as if you at least have some idea what this historic script 
> consists of, as something obviously distinct from Palmyrene and the 
> square script. What does it look like?
>
Sorry, I don't have much idea. My point is that there is no one such 
script, only diverse fragments. See 
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf, where the following is 
written:

> Aramaic forms a rather complex family of scripts, with a number of 
> descendants. Certainly there is a basic Aramaic, but it has many 
> descendents (including Mongolian and possibly Brahmi) which are unique 
> enough to merit their own encoding (see table 5.5). More research is 
> required. However, Aramaic is expected to encompass at least:
> Aramaic proper
> Middle Persian
> Parthian
> Sogdian

I don't know what is meant by "a basic Aramaic" or "Aramaic proper". 
Table 5.5 shows Hebrew, Palmyrene, Nabataean and ancient Arabic scripts. 
Table 5.3 column XI is represents an Aramaic papyrus script of 465 BCE, 
presumably one of the Elephantine papyri. I can only guess that this is 
intended to be the roadmapped Aramaic script. Aramaic was a widely used 
official language but surprisingly little evidence survives, see for 
example 
http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/projects/sass_project_eng.html:

> The Aramaic legends, in turn, are in the lapidary, or monumental 
> script. This script is well documented since the fifth century, and to 
> some extent also in the ninth through the seventh century, but not in 
> the sixth. As chance would have it, only one monumental inscription 
> from this time was hitherto known. It came from the Beirut antiquities 
> market, hence its value is less than that of provenanced inscriptions. 
> Our bricks, on the other hand, come from a controlled excavation, they 
> are further dated by the cuneiform impressions of Babylonian kings, 
> and their large number offers a better view of the material. These 
> brick impressions close the gap in our knowledge of the monumental 
> Aramaic script in the sixth century, ...


Meanwhile I can refer you all to a thread about Aramaic and Unicode at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aramaic/messages/66 (see also the next 
page), from July-August this year, which is discussion among experts in 
Aramaic. Among the contributors is Peter T. Daniels, co-author of 
Daniels and Bright. There are various preferences, and considerable 
confusion about Unicode intentions and roadmapping.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 23 09:53:22 2003
X-UIDL: f83140466d980694bc94856e7428b3e8
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:51:35 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYqgt-00065U-54
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:51:31 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNHjOR09701;
	Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:45:24 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:45:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80707.mail.yahoo.com (web80707.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.64])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBNHjOR09695
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:45:24 -0500
Message-ID: <20031223174523.65190.qmail@web80707.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [63.164.145.85] by web80707.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:45:23 PST
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:45:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Cc: jameskass@att.net
In-Reply-To: <200312230229.hBN2TXR23426@unicode.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 998
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

         Elaine Keown
         still in central Texas

Dear Rick, James Kass, and Hebrew List:

Thanks to Rick for forwarding.  I stay "on vacation"
from the main Unicode list about 98% of the
time--overwhelming amount of material, seldom mentions
Aramaic, Moabite, etc.  

I see strong parallels between Chinese+ unification
and "Aramaic+" unification.  

If I understand the technical history correctly,
Chinese, Japanese, and Korean were actually unified
pre-Unicode, in the misty linguistic chaos of the
early 1980s.  The RLG (Research Libraries Group?), a
company that produces commercial library software, did
that CJK unification.....although I would still like
to know if the RLG's CJK unification had roots in some
initiative from the Chinese Language Computer Society,
which also existed in the 1980s.  

I've only had modern Mandarin--BTW I was the best
Caucasian in my evening school in Boston--and only
learned to write the modern "square" version of
Chinese simplified characters. 

But I've seen the old elongated Chinese characters
from 1,700-1,600 B.C. and I've also seen the
simplified scribal characters from maybe 2,000 years
ago.  

The characters that were unified for Chinese are about
as different as the letters for Semitic alphabetic
that I still think should be unified today.  

I am not sure if *all* Semitic alphabetic should be
unified---when I finally finish the font prep, I hope
to have the "leisure" to look at length at the issues.

> > Ideally, input would be solicited from members of
> > the user communities who have read Daniels and 
> > Bright (as well as other germaine publications)
and > > who know something about computer encoding and
the 

Is that your *usual* expectation of "research,"
reading *one* book, a mere 180 or so pages, with only
30 authors, only 5 of whom did Semitics?  Can I throw
up now?   

I read at least 600 pages of history of Aramaic before
I wrote anything at all for the 2002 Tucson version of
my old Web site.  

Normally "research" consists of thousands of pages and
studying at least one old Semitic language.  How many
of you can read, say, I Kings in the Hebrew Bible (the
easiest book), without a dictionary?  Speak up,
now....

No Semitist would interpret the literature the way you
have at Unicode.  

Maybe the problem is not with Semitics, maybe the
problem is that your existing model lacks considerably
in something like common sense, or software
engineering, which I hope would be part of *anyone's*
analysis of what to do with old scripts.  

As I said elsewhere, there are at most
6_full_pages_of_ rare_early Semitic material written
on pottery, stone, plaster, obsidian, compared to
1,000 pages of Tanakh and tens of thousands of pages
of Talmud.  

What's the point of making a separate script for
something with that amount of material, which can be
read only by advanced Ph.D. students at the better
schools of the world?  

Elaine

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Tue Dec 23 10:13:22 2003
X-UIDL: 8c2a030a18021d865df929c1db3e30be
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:11:16 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYqzz-0006a7-8H
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:11:15 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNI8KR12943;
	Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:08:20 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:08:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNI8KR12936
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:08:20 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id F2FE4407236; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:08:05 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FE88491.4020009@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:08:17 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org, jameskass@att.net
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <20031223174523.65190.qmail@web80707.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031223174523.65190.qmail@web80707.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 999
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 23/12/2003 09:45, Elaine Keown wrote:

>         Elaine Keown
>         still in central Texas
>
>Dear Rick, James Kass, and Hebrew List:
>
>Thanks to Rick for forwarding.  I stay "on vacation"
>from the main Unicode list about 98% of the
>time--overwhelming amount of material, seldom mentions
>Aramaic, Moabite, etc.  
>
>  
>
There has been plenty about Aramaic this week. You might enjoy the 
archives even if most others are bored or annoyed by them.

>...
>
>>>deally, input would be solicited from members of
>>>the user communities who have read Daniels and 
>>>Bright (as well as other germaine publications)
>>>      
>>>
>and > > who know something about computer encoding and
>the 
>
>  
>
I plan on going one better than that, asking a member of the user 
community who has WRITTEN Daniels and Bright, and who seems to know 
something about the issue, i.e. Peter T. Daniels. See e.g. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aramaic/message/77. I have already 
contacted the moderator of that group.

>...
>
>Normally "research" consists of thousands of pages and
>studying at least one old Semitic language.  How many
>of you can read, say, I Kings in the Hebrew Bible (the
>easiest book), without a dictionary?  Speak up,
>now....
>
>  
>
Well, I would be guessing some words, especially about building the temple.

>...
>
>What's the point of making a separate script for
>something with that amount of material, which can be
>read only by advanced Ph.D. students at the better
>schools of the world?  
>
>  
>
... and they don't want to read it!

>Elaine
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 23 11:13:22 2003
X-UIDL: 0f1b0c79e85dbc4cb68bf4281e89e4f4
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:09:42 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYruY-0008Gr-62
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:09:42 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNJ6YR18320;
	Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:06:34 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:06:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from izanami (ip-216-36-75-240.dsl.sjc.megapath.net [216.36.75.240])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBNJ6XR18314
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:06:33 -0500
Message-Id: <200312231906.hBNJ6XR18314@unicode.org>
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
In-Reply-To: <200312230229.hBN2TXR23426@unicode.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:06:26 -0800
From: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
received: by Apple.Mailer (2.95.2)
X-archive-position: 1000
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: rick@unicode.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Elaine wrote...

> Dear Rick, James Kass, and Hebrew List:

Uh, thanks, but, I've just been watching this exchange.

> I see strong parallels between Chinese+ unification
> and "Aramaic+" unification.

I don't see much parallel. And I *do* know something about Chinese &  
Japanese writing. This is a somewhat different thing.

> If I understand the technical history correctly,
> Chinese, Japanese, and Korean were actually unified
> pre-Unicode, in the misty linguistic chaos of the
> early 1980s.

You don't understand this bit of technical history. The scripts used for  
those languages were "dis"unified only by the introduction of telegraphic  
and other encodings in the early years of electrical signal transmission  
because different countries dealt with their own languages, not with any  
international scope. Thus, the computer encodings for *the same script*  
(Han) grew up separately in different countries, locally standardized, all  
the way up to the 1980s. There are some local variations and font  
preferences in different Han-using areas. The *dis* unification of Han into  
separate "national" variants is what's artificial, historically, and arose  
out of local attempts to circumscribe sets of things for transmission and  
storage by electrical and electronic means. Historically, for a couple  
thousand years at least, there has only been one Han script shared by many  
languages.

The situation with earliest Aramaic versus Hebrew appears more akin to the  
situation between the earliest Chinese fragments (e.g. "Oracle Bone") and  
the later brush styles, where there is a lot of historical fog and no  
mutual intelligibility. But it's not very relevant.

One point you made was:

> As I said elsewhere, there are at most
> 6_full_pages_of_ rare_early Semitic material written
> on pottery, stone, plaster, obsidian, compared to
> 1,000 pages of Tanakh and tens of thousands of pages
> of Talmud.
> What's the point of making a separate script for
> something with that amount of material,

I don't know. Make a case one way or another. What we have now is a  
situation where this "roadmap" -- a rough guide to how some of us think  
things should be eventually encoded -- shows some historical scripts. It's  
up to interested experts to show that it's either reasonable or  
unreasonable to break things down that way. And then, assuming that it  
turns out to be reasonable to circumscribe of these scripts and separate  
them from others, it's either worth the time & effort or not.

My take on all this is that Everson isn't interested in investing time or  
effort on Aramaic etc at this time. If someone *else* wants to do  
something, they are more than welcome to do something, and provide a paper  
about their findings.

	Rick




From - Sat Dec 27 12:51:39 2003
X-UIDL: 75a5e2ca87f60ab4949e494b08d0c5a2
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:13:18 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYxaO-0002Ia-H6
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:13:16 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBO19ER06969;
	Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:09:14 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:09:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBO19AR06963
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:09:10 -0500
Received: (qmail 17550 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2003 01:09:00 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 24 Dec 2003 01:09:00 -0000
Message-ID: <3FE8E72A.8050305@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:08:58 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
CC: hebrew@unicode.org, jameskass@att.net
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
References: <20031223174523.65190.qmail@web80707.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031223174523.65190.qmail@web80707.mail.yahoo.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1001
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 12/23/03 12:45, Elaine Keown wrote:

>I am not sure if *all* Semitic alphabetic should be
>unified---when I finally finish the font prep, I hope
>to have the "leisure" to look at length at the issues.
>  
>
Like I said, I don't have the same strong feelings you do, but I think 
it's likely everyone will agree that at least *some* scripts should stay 
disunified.  Michael mentioned the "Phoenician" script as an example of 
that, and it's probably a good one.  I actually rather like the idea of 
using a different encoding for the Tetragrammaton in the Dead Sea 
Scrolls.  It's not like boldface or italic; more like katakana vs 
hiragana.  Of course, I also wanted to have a single codepoint for that, 
but that's another matter.

>Normally "research" consists of thousands of pages and
>studying at least one old Semitic language.  How many
>of you can read, say, I Kings in the Hebrew Bible (the
>easiest book), without a dictionary?  Speak up,
>now....
>
I had to write something in response to this letter, just so I could 
answer.  Yeah, I probably could.  Might have to mumble or grok from 
context a few words here and there, but I could (and have, though not 
necessarily an entire book from start to finish.  Well, actually, yeah, 
I've read Esther and Jonah all through and understand them).

~mark





From - Sat Dec 27 12:52:42 2003
X-UIDL: 60a7ddc26db345ee932c573acac90629
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 07:29:39 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AZmPh-0004XW-0C
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 07:29:37 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBQ7Qll31936;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 02:26:47 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 02:26:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBQ7NVl31895;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 02:23:31 -0500
Received: from sdn-ap-035dcwashp0129.dialsprint.net ([65.179.104.129])
	by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 1AZmJV-0003nH-00; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:23:14 -0800
From: "Dean Snyder" <dean.snyder@jhu.edu>
To: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>, <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why Aramaic now)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 02:23:38 -0500
Message-Id: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail 4.2 us Carbon <http://www.ctmdev.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==_20031226072338.1195-1_=="
X-archive-position: 1002
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: dean.snyder@jhu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

--==_20031226072338.1195-1_==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael Everson wrote to the Unicode email list at 8:44 PM on Wednesday,
December 24, 2003:

>There is zero chance that Phoenician will be considered to be a glyph 
>variant of Hebrew. Zero chance. 

If you are thinking of chronology and mean that Phoenician came first,
most scholars would agree with you. But I would ask, so what? What does
chronological priority have to do with establishing separate encodings?
Should Latin be separately encoded?

On the other hand, if you mean that both Hebrew and Phoenician are not
glyphic variants of the same script system, then I know of no scholar who
would agree with you. 

Ancient Phoenician, Punic, Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and Aramaic are
different dialects and/or languages commonly written with the same right-
to-left script system containing the same 22 non-numeric characters and
exhibiting no more glyphic variation over a period of a thousand years
than that seen in the various manifestations of the Latin alphabet. (For
a sampling of ancient Phoenician, Moabite, and Hebrew glyphic variation
see the attached script chart taken from Gibson's Textbook of Syrian
Semitic Inscriptions - volume 2 has samples of Aramaic glyphic variants.)

I see no justification for separately encoding Phoenician. If you did
encode it, where, and on what bases, then would you draw the lines for
the separate encodings of the other ancient Northwest Semitic languages
and periods (because that's what these are, other languages and periods,
and not other scripts)? What we have here is a continuum of glyphic
variation within a single script system.


>The number of books about writing 
>systems, from children's books to books for adults, which contain 
>references to the Phoenician alphabet as the parent to both Etruscan 
>and Hebrew, are legion.

Using the same reasoning, we should separately encode Latin, the parent
script for English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, ...


>Some scholars may decide to transliterate all Phoenician texts into 
>Hebrew script and read only that, and retrieve it from their 
>databases, and that is perfectly fine. Lots of people transliterate 
>Sanskrit into Latin and never use Devanagari.

By definition, one cannot "transliterate ... Phoenician texts into Hebrew
script". Unlike your example of Devanagari and Latin, Phoenician and
Hebrew share a common script system.

-----------------------------------------

I think the real problem here arises from the fact that medieval and
modern Hebrew, a superset of the ancient Hebrew script, with vowels,
punctuation, and cantillation marks added to late glyphic variants of the
22 ancient Northwest Semitic consonants, was encoded in Unicode without
considering Phoenician, Aramaic, etc. at the same time, and now there is
resistance to using Unicode characters with "Hebrew" in their names to
write Phoenician, Aramaic, etc. (Imagine if the Latin consonants had been
named "ENGLISH CAPITAL LETTER A, ..."!)

I see three solutions to the problem:

1) Do nothing - leave everything the way it is and use the 22 "Hebrew"
consonants for all ancient Northwest Semitic alphabetic text.

2) Rename the 22 shared consonants now in the Hebrew block to something
like "ANCIENT NORTHWEST SEMITIC ALEPH", etc. (The actual name needs to be
finessed because Ugaritic is a Northwest Semitic language but uses a
different script system.)

3) Separately encode the ancient Northwest Semitic script.

It isn't strictly Uniocdesque (because the characters are in fact already
encoded), but I think I prefer solution 3. It would be very simple to do
(many of us can rattle them off the top of our head) and it would give us
a unified block for this ANCIENT PHASE of the script to which we could
then attach those characters, numbers, and punctuation marks needed to
cover completely the rest of ancient usage.


Respectfully,

Dean A. Snyder
Scholarly Technology Specialist
Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi

--==_20031226072338.1195-1_==
Content-Type: image/gif; name="Gibson.gif"; x-mac-type="47494666";
 x-mac-creator="3842494D"
Content-Disposition: attachment
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--==_20031226072338.1195-1_==--





From - Sat Dec 27 12:52:45 2003
X-UIDL: a0a338323f10a658cddc53a292fb82b5
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:00:10 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AZtRe-0006DT-02
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:00:06 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBQEw4l13592;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:58:04 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:58:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBQEw3l13586;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:58:03 -0500
Received: from [195.218.110.100] (unverified [195.218.110.162]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034794256@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net>;
 Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:58:02 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020405bc11f6fe747b@[195.218.110.100]>
In-Reply-To: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
References: <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:57:16 +0000
To: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>, <hebrew@unicode.org>
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why Aramaic now)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1003
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 02:23 -0500 2003-12-26, Dean Snyder wrote:

>If you are thinking of chronology and mean that Phoenician came 
>first, most scholars would agree with you.

I too am a scholar, Dean.

>But I would ask, so what? What does chronological priority have to 
>do with establishing separate encodings?

The source of scripts and characters has often been a criterion for 
their disunification. Ages ago I showed that the unification of YOGH 
and EZH was incorrect because the two letters had different sources. 
The same is true for scripts.

To sketch the relationships: Canaanite split into Phoenician and 
Aramaic. Paleo-Hebrew derives from Phoenician, as does Samaritan. 
Square Hebrew on the other hand derives from Aramaic. There are nodes 
on this tree which we are proposing to investigate for encoding.

>Should Latin be separately encoded?

Latin *has* been separately encoded.

>On the other hand, if you mean that both Hebrew and Phoenician are 
>not glyphic variants of the same script system, then I know of no 
>scholar who would agree with you.

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.

>Ancient Phoenician, Punic, Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and Aramaic are
>different dialects and/or languages commonly written with the same right-
>to-left script system

Again here you are using a "term", "script system" in an undefined way.

>containing the same 22 non-numeric characters and exhibiting no more 
>glyphic variation over a period of a thousand years than that seen 
>in the various manifestations of the Latin alphabet.

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. Research as to which 
has not yet been completed apart from the initial work done in 1999 
resulting in the current Roadmap.

>(For a sampling of ancient Phoenician, Moabite, and Hebrew glyphic 
>variation see the attached script chart taken from Gibson's Textbook 
>of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions - volume 2 has samples of Aramaic 
>glyphic variants.)

There are many such charts; the resolution of the one you sent is not 
sufficient to make use of it.

>I see no justification for separately encoding Phoenician.

Fine. I do, including but not limited to meta-discussion of writing 
systems in a very large body of secondary literature.

>If you did encode it, where, and on what bases, then would you draw 
>the lines for the separate encodings of the other ancient Northwest 
>Semitic languages and periods (because that's what these are, other 
>languages and periods, and not other scripts)?

This is the specific work we have not done yet, but it's not rocket 
science. Students of writing are able to distinguish early Aramaic 
from Phoenician because of certain characteristics in the ductus for 
instance. Also there was the introduction of the matres lectionis. It 
is a question of which nodes on the tree it makes sense to encode.

>What we have here is a continuum of glyphic variation within a 
>single script system.

Here we have a range of related but distinct scripts. Compare 
Khutsuri (comprising Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri) and Mkhedruli Georgian.

>  >The number of books about writing systems, from children's books to books
>  >for adults, which contain references to the Phoenician alphabet as the
>  >parent to both Etruscan and Hebrew, are legion.
>
>Using the same reasoning, we should separately encode Latin, the 
>parent script for English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, ...

You appear to have reasoned about this matter in a different way than 
I have, for what you suggest would not follow from what I have 
suggested.

>  >Some scholars may decide to transliterate all Phoenician texts into
>>Hebrew script and read only that, and retrieve it from their
>>databases, and that is perfectly fine. Lots of people transliterate
>>Sanskrit into Latin and never use Devanagari.
>
>By definition, one cannot "transliterate ... Phoenician texts into 
>Hebrew script".

Of course you can.

>Unlike your example of Devanagari and Latin, Phoenician and Hebrew 
>share a common script system.

You can transliterate Devanagari Sanskrit into Sinhala and Burmese, 
which scripts share the same structure. Latin shares a different 
structure, it is true.

>I think the real problem here arises from the fact that medieval and
>modern Hebrew, a superset of the ancient Hebrew script, with vowels,
>punctuation, and cantillation marks added to late glyphic variants of the
>22 ancient Northwest Semitic consonants, was encoded in Unicode without
>considering Phoenician, Aramaic, etc. at the same time, and now there is
>resistance to using Unicode characters with "Hebrew" in their names to
>write Phoenician, Aramaic, etc.

I think the "real problem" here arises from the fact that some 
scholars, familiar with Hebrew, find it easier to read early Semitic 
texts in square script than in the originals. The same thing happens 
with Runic and Gothic and Glagolitic and Khutsuri, and indeed 
Cuneiform, where Latin is often preferred (regardless of the 
structure of the writing systems). The needs of those scholars is 
met: they can use Hebrew and Latin with diacritics. No problem. The 
needs of other clients of the Universal Character Set, no matter how 
"unscholarly" they may be, will be met by encoding appropriate nodes 
in the Semitic tree.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sat Dec 27 12:52:48 2003
X-UIDL: 2d362402feeaf27a7386d1ca0ae8b9dd
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:15:29 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AZvYe-00013K-06
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:15:28 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBQHDgl15507;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:13:42 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:13:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80806.mail.yahoo.com (web80806.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.101])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBQHDfl15497
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 12:13:41 -0500
Message-ID: <20031226171341.84589.qmail@web80806.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [66.76.153.207] by web80806.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:13:41 PST
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:13:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why Aramaic now)
To: Unicode List <unicode@unicode.org>, hebrew@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <p06020405bc11f6fe747b@[195.218.110.100]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 1004
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

      Elaine Keown
      still in Texas

Dear Michael Everson, Dean Snyder, and Lists:

I am grateful that Michael Everson chose to share his
thinking (and, I guess, that of Rick McGowan and Ken
Whistler) on Semitic alphabet(s) with us.  I had been
wondering for a long time where the Roadmap ideas came
from.  

> >If you are thinking of chronology and mean that
> > Phoenician came first, most scholars would agree 
> > with you.

As I wrote a few days ago, I think there's a period of
time--- ~1,700 B.C.E.-~1,150 B.C.E.---where there's a
great deal of arguing by real epigraphers over what
happened with the scraps of alphabetic text they found
in many places.  

But they have now found alphabetic texts in Syria (the
cuneiform Ugaritic), the southern Sinai, and in Wadi
el-Hol of the Egyptian Western Desert (west of the
watered, rich triangle of the Nile Delta).  I think
they're all about 1,800-1,600 B.C.E.

The alphabetic items from southern Sinai were
discovered about 1915 and have been greatly argued
over--was this really a script?  what direction was it
written in?  Etc.  I have only heard that they had
different opinions at Harvard and at UChicago.  I
don't know (sorry) how these texts are viewed at Johns
Hopkins.  

But in 1993 Egyptologists discovered more, longer
textual material like the Sinaitic material at Wadi
el-Hol.  I believe they think the Wadi el-Hol material
is from Aramaeans who were soldiers in the western
desert.  

So it's quite possible that the real grandmother
alphabet was invented in Egypt or Sinai, which means
that the Phoenicians used a pre-existing script.  

I am NOT an epigrapher--I can read pointed square
script and some modern Israeli stuff (street signs,
very very simple newspaper articles, menus).  I feel
like I am climbing further and further out on some
limb when I write these things.  I hope that Dean
Snyder and other fully trained Semitists will chime in
and comment.  

Elaine

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Sat Dec 27 12:52:51 2003
X-UIDL: b68c749d421b33f5aed6c64a19edfe06
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:39:22 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AZwrn-0003qz-9Y
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:39:19 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBQIb0l16611;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:37:00 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:37:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBQIb0l16605
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:37:00 -0500
Received: (qmail 21537 invoked from network); 26 Dec 2003 18:36:51 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 26 Dec 2003 18:36:51 -0000
Message-ID: <3FEC7FC3.8010706@kli.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:36:51 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
CC: Unicode List <unicode@unicode.org>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why Aramaic now)
References: <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p06020405bc11f6fe747b@[195.218.110.100]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020405bc11f6fe747b@[195.218.110.100]>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1005
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 12/26/03 09:57, 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. 

This is a particularly cogent point.  The Mishna (c. 1st century C.E.) 
does explicitly distinguish between Paleo-Hebrew and Square Hebrew 
(tractate Yadayim 4:5).  That's not a font-difference, that's a 
script-difference, I think.  This stated in the same sentence as 
distinguishing Hebrew Scriptures written down in Aramaic translation and 
Aramaic Scriptures (Daniel, Ezra) written down in Hebrew translation.  
So it's seen as a parallel to the language.  This one's tough to argue, 
except to note that we don't have to satisfy first-century Rabbis at the 
moment.

> I think the "real problem" here arises from the fact that some 
> scholars, familiar with Hebrew, find it easier to read early Semitic 
> texts in square script than in the originals. The same thing happens 
> with Runic and Gothic and Glagolitic and Khutsuri, and indeed 
> Cuneiform, where Latin is often preferred (regardless of the structure 
> of the writing systems). The needs of those scholars is met: they can 
> use Hebrew and Latin with diacritics. No problem. The needs of other 
> clients of the Universal Character Set, no matter how "unscholarly" 
> they may be, will be met by encoding appropriate nodes in the Semitic 
> tree. 

This is the other really significant point: Semitic scholars may all 
agree, but all the world is not Semitic scholarship, and non-{Semitic 
scholars} have to be satisfied as well.  Since the Semitic scholars are 
also getting what they want, where's the harm in encoding more 
alphabets?  It's not *that* simple: one could argue (as is being done) 
that more alphabets would lead to confusion about which one should be 
used, and mess up searches.  I guess we'd just have to make sure that 
people doing scholarly work in Semitic languages know to use Hebrew all 
the time (they already know that), no matter what the language.  And in 
cases where material is to be incorporated from non-scholarly sources 
who used another alphabet, that can be transcoded when entered into 
databases to keep them uniform if that's what's necessary, but 
presumably that wouldn't happen often.

~mark





From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:05 2003
X-UIDL: f194422b7532ead0f36ea1b5ff8854e4
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:25:51 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aa49D-0006fn-Mc
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:25:47 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBR2Nnl24678;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:23:49 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:23:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBR2Kkl24658;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:20:48 -0500
Received: from sdn-ap-034dcwashp0221.dialsprint.net ([65.179.96.221])
	by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 1Aa44J-0006OW-00; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:20:44 -0800
From: "Dean Snyder" <dean.snyder@jhu.edu>
To: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>, <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Aramaic unification and information retrieval
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:21:09 -0500
Message-Id: <20031227022109.15094@smtp.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <p06020402bc1244f52bf0@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <p06020402bc1244f52bf0@[192.168.0.2]>
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail 4.2 us Carbon <http://www.ctmdev.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1008
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: dean.snyder@jhu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael Everson wrote at 8:27 PM on Friday, December 26, 2003:

>No student of writing systems classes the "Gaelic 
>script" as something different from "Latin script". The same cannot 
>be said of Phoenician, Samaritan, and Hebrew, for instance.

It depends, of course, on what you mean by "something different".

If you have glyph variation in mind then there are, naturally,
differences; if you mean they are different writing systems then no, they
are not; and contra your assertion, I know of NO student of ancient
writing systems who would claim that these are different writing systems
(in the Unicode sense of the phrase, which I presume we are talking about
here). Can you cite one?

To get a feel for the kinds of variations that occurred over many
centuries in the ancient Northwest Semitic script take a look at these
paleographic charts, which include glyphs for Phoenician, Moabite, Old
Hebrew, Samaritan, and Old Aramaic:

<http://www.jhu.edu/ice/ancientnorthwestsemitic/gesenius.gif>
<http://www.jhu.edu/ice/ancientnorthwestsemitic/gibson1.gif>
<http://www.jhu.edu/ice/ancientnorthwestsemitic/gibson2.gif>

These are exactly the same kinds and extents of variations one encounters
in various Greek inscriptions and manuscripts over the centuries, the
script variants of which are not, of course, encoded separately. And so I
think there must be a compelling reason to do so for Northwest Semitic,
one which I have not heard yet.

Don't get me wrong, I do think there may be good reasons to separately
encode some of the script "nodes", as you call them, (Samaritan comes to
mind, because of its long and separate transmission tradition associated
with its religion) but we should be very clear that the reasons are NOT
based on the fact that they are separate writing systems. I see, for
example, no justification for calling Phoenician, Punic, Moabite,
Ammonite, Old Hebrew, and Old Aramaic different writing systems.
(Samaritan, I would have to do more research on with this issue in mind,
but from what I know now about it, it is not a separate writing system.)


Respectfully,

Dean A. Snyder
Scholarly Technology Specialist
Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi






From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:05 2003
X-UIDL: cb4c1bc546cc5fff1ae076f78589c329
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:41:26 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aa4OI-000796-M7
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:41:22 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBR2dDl28471;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:39:13 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:39:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from priv-edtnes27.telusplanet.net (outbound04.telus.net [199.185.220.223])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBR2cYl28422;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:38:35 -0500
Received: from Sophia.tiro.com ([66.183.172.245])
          by priv-edtnes27.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP
          id <20031227023829.LSUN22035.priv-edtnes27.telusplanet.net@Sophia.tiro.com>;
          Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:38:29 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
X-Sender: tiro@pop3.portal.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:38:10 -0800
To: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>, <hebrew@unicode.org>
From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why
  Aramaic now)
In-Reply-To: <p06020405bc11f6fe747b@[195.218.110.100]>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1009
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: tiro@tiro.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

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_





From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:09 2003
X-UIDL: 0b9c3c2fad6e884a5e079490f7e3b860
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:06:27 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aa6eg-0002jP-Ag
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:06:26 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBR541l13929;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:04:01 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:04:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tomts45-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts45-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.112])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBR50fl13896;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:00:41 -0500
Received: from smrtytrek.com ([204.101.137.194])
          by tomts45-srv.bellnexxia.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP
          id <20031227050041.EQRJ22468.tomts45-srv.bellnexxia.net@smrtytrek.com>;
          Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:00:41 -0500
Message-ID: <3FED1216.7080908@smrtytrek.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:01:10 -0500
From: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030916
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why Aramaic
 now)
References: <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p06020405bc11f6fe747b@[195.218.110.100]> <3FEC7FC3.8010706@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEC7FC3.8010706@kli.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1010
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: jallan@smrtytrek.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> This is a particularly cogent point.  The Mishna (c. 1st century C.E.) 
> does explicitly distinguish between Paleo-Hebrew and Square Hebrew 
> (tractate Yadayim 4:5).  That's not a font-difference, that's a 
> script-difference, I think.

There were no such things as fonts in the 1st century C.E. So it would 
have to be a script-difference. But what is a "script"?

"Script", as I pointed out previously, is a word of wide meaning. The 
difference between Paleo-Hebrew and Square Hebrew is a script 
difference. But the word "script" is also used for different varieties 
of the Square Hebrew script. Check in Google for ["rashi script"] or 
["ari script"] . There is a two-volume book:
_Specimans of Medieval Hebrew Scripts_ by Malachi beit Arie. See 
http://www.bookgallery.co.il/content/english/static/book8177.asp

Check also in Google for ["italic script"], ["uncial script"], 
["blackletter script" OR "black letter script"].

We are talking about exactly the same alphabet (or abjad) here, 
twenty-two letters in the same order with identical meaning originating 
from the same sources recording the identical text with identical spelling.

Compare the gradual change from blackletter "scripts" to Antiqua style 
Latin characters (including the italic script) in Renaissance and 
post-Renaissance Europe. This is similar to the change from Phoenician 
style to Aramaic style.

> This is the other really significant point: Semitic scholars may all 
> agree, but all the world is not Semitic scholarship, and non-{Semitic 
> scholars} have to be satisfied as well.  Since the Semitic scholars 
> are also getting what they want, where's the harm in encoding more 
> alphabets?

Who are these non-scholars who want the Palmyrene script (for example) 
to be encoded separately from other Aramaic scripts? Who are the 
scholars who want this? How many persons in the world want Palmyrene to 
be encoded separately? As many as fifty? Or is there just Michael Everson?

There may be some such scholars, and if so I would like to hear the 
arguments they would bring forth. I'm willing to be convinced by 
arguments. I'm not an *expert* in Aramaic scripts. There aren't that 
many who are.

As to harm, where's the harm in encoding Japanese kanzi separately, or 
Latin uncial, or a complete set of small capitals as a third case? 
Where's the harm in encoding Latin Renaissance scripts separately?

No harm perhaps, but no good either. There is no need or use for such 
encodings. Scholars using Latin letters and non-scholars using Latin 
letters are not asking for separate coding of the script used in the 
Beowulf manuscript and so forth. They don't want every Latin "script" 
variation encoded separately.

>   It's not *that* simple: one could argue (as is being done) that more 
> alphabets would lead to confusion about which one should be used, and 
> mess up searches.  I guess we'd just have to make sure that people 
> doing scholarly work in Semitic languages know to use Hebrew all the 
> time (they already know that), no matter what the language.

But the point is that many of these Semitic language use the *same* 
abjad with different styling, one such styling being the letters encoded 
in Unicode as Hebrew letters with default glyphs of modern Hebrew form. 
Only the letter shapes are different. But between some northwest Semitic 
"scripts" they are not very different, less so than between Latin 
"script" and Latin "script".

Second, people doing work in Semitic languages using the Latin alphabet 
do also often use Latin transliterations  (which do not all agree). I 
assume that there are also standard Cyrillic transliterations used by 
scholars using the Cyrillic alphabet and so forth.

Such things are not for Unicode to regulate.

>   And in cases where material is to be incorporated from non-scholarly 
> sources who used another alphabet, that can be transcoded when entered 
> into databases to keep them uniform if that's what's necessary, but 
> presumably that wouldn't happen often.

What non-scholarly sources? Why would a non-scholar *need* or *desire* 
Palmyrene Aramaic encoded separately while a scholar would not? A change 
to a Palmyrene Aramaic font would do the job as well, for Palmyrene 
Aramaic and any of the various Aramaic "scripts" or "styles" just as a 
font change does for historical styles for European scripts if someone 
want to print of display them. In fact such fonts do poorly, just as a 
general black letter medieval font will do poorly for anything but the 
exact manuscript on which it was based, if based on a particular 
manuscript. There are no fonts before modern times, no exactly 
standardized characters, no exactly standardized type styles. Every 
scribe has a different hand. Characters in simple charts of Semitic 
scripts are often deceptive just as charts of forms taken by medieval 
Latin characters in particular "scripts"/"styles" are deceptive, often 
being a choice made by a scholar from many variants.

Coding Aramaic generally as a single script in Unicode would code all 
the "script" variations. This has already been done by encoding the 
square Aramaic letters in their "modern Hebrew" forms. What more is 
needed for encoding? Similarly Latin has been encoded with modern Latin 
letter forms as the default glyphs and Greek has been encoded with 
modern Greek letter forms as the default glyphs. One might want some 
further final forms and additional punctuation for Aramaic styles (or 
might not). That can be decided.  Otherwise,  there is nothing much more 
to do, save perhaps add a matrix somewhere showing variant glyphs in 
different Aramaic "scripts"/"styles".

To take another example, all runic "scripts" have been unified in 
Unicode, though the runic "scripts" vary greatly in the number of 
letters used and in the values of the letters as well as in their 
appearance. There is more *reason* to produce separate encodings for the 
various runic scripts then for northwest Semitic "scripts", though I've 
heard no complaints about the unification of runic "scripts" and I have 
no complaints myself.

Indeed, there is no *reason* when looking at the values of the 
characters of the Semitic "scripts" related to Phoenician that there 
could not have been a single encoding for the consonants for *all* these 
supposed "scripts" (with separate encodings for the pointings).

A common Semitic encoding *could* still be added to Unicode, with 
individuals deciding whether or not to use that coding also for Arabic, 
Hebrew and Syriac.

I am not recommending this.

I am pointing out how much these scripts are seen to be stylistic 
variants of one another to one who can to some extent read them.

If one must split them up, charts and scholarly books do provide normal 
divisions of "scripts" or "styles" which correspond to those given by 
Michael Everson at http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf 

All that has been well worked out for the common "scripts". A normal 
division is:

1.) Proto-Sinaitic and other early pictographs.
2.) Old Arabic "scripts" (Old South Arabic and Old North Arabic).
3.) Northwest Semitic (the 22-character abjad including Phoenician 
scripts, descendant Aramaic scripts such as square Aramaic used for 
Hebrew and also including Syriac).
4.) Arabic (which though descended from Nabatean Aramaic became so 
different that it might be better encoded separately, perhaps to be 
compared to the Aramaic scripts in somewhat the same way as Latin might 
be compared to early Greek scripts).

The common 22-character Northwest Semitic abjad can be broken down into:

1.) Phoenician/Canaanite scripts including Paleo-Hebrew and its 
descendant Samaritan and also Paleo-Aramaic.
2.) Later Aramaic scripts.
3.) Syriac scripts which differ greatly in appearance from the other 
Aramaic scripts.

Note: special appearance and pointing for Hebrew and Syriac is really 
the only reason to distinguish these particularly. The letters are the 
same in origin and are more the same in meaning than between Greek 
script and variant Greek script.  Greek letters in variant Greek scripts 
however are (generally) far more alike in appearance than the characters 
of the various early northwest Semitic "scripts"/"styles".

But should a difference in appearance count in a decision to code 
separately within Unicode when *every* other feature of two "scripts" is 
identical, including origin?

Hebrew scriptures were first written in the Phoenician script (= 
Paleo-Hebrew), then in Aramaic script which developed *very* slightly in 
medieval times to the normal modern Hebrew script. Emerson's division 
would suggest four different scripts ought to be used for coding the 
same texts with the same logical characters with the same names, that 
texts should be encoded as Phoenician or Aramaic or Hebrew or Samaritan 
depending on style, when when letter-by-letter the same.

Cursive Hebrew still retains for some letter forms the Phoenician shapes 
(which is very strange). Should cursive Hebrew therefore be encoded 
separately?

I don't see any purpose in encoding these scripts differently in Unicode 
when they represent *exactly* the same abjad with only different styling 
of the characters.

Michael Everson at http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf could 
only say:

<< Note that Jony Rosenne once suggested that we should not encode 
Phoenician because it is a
glyph variant of Hebrew. This is not true, despite the one-to-one 
correspondence of character entities. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, for 
instance, where the Tetragrammaton is written with Paleo-Hebrew letters, 
it is (in UCS
encoding terms) the Phoenician script in which the Name is written. >>

First, there is not *just* a one-to-one correspondence of character 
entities but also one-to-one correspondence of the characters in respect 
to their origin and names. They *are* the same abjad in all but style.

Second, if it is argued that the use of Phoenician script for the 
Tetragrammaton in some texts otherwise written in square Aramaic 
characters indicates that Phoenician and square Aramaic characters must 
be encoded separately within Unicode, should not one make the same 
argument for medieval texts with a headline "script" imitating 
traditional Roman square capitals, initial paragraphs in uncial "script" 
and the main text in Carolingian "script" including majuscule and 
miniscule letters?

If Everson's argument is applied to medieval manuscripts, uncial 
"script" and Carolingian "script" and Roman capitals should be encoded 
separately within Unicode.

Also, the Tetragrammaton is represented in the English King James 
translation of Hebrew scriptures and in some more recent translations by 
the word LORD and sometimes GOD in which all but the first letter is 
printed in small capitals. Should small capitals therefore be encoded 
separately in Unicode?

(Note: these small capitals are the small capitals normally used for 
emphasis and usually appear slightly higher than the normal lowercase 
characters lacking ascenders. They are not the same as the lower case 
small capital characters coded in Unicode as phonetic characters which 
properly appear as identical in height to other lower case characters.)

That characters of one style are used in a text written predominately in 
another style does not indicate that the "script" or "style" to which 
they belong needs to be coded independently. That is what markup is for.

Peter Kirk has already made this point in part.

There seems to me *no* reason why most of Aramaic "scripts" should not 
be unified within Unicode with Hebrew and almost *no* reason why 
Phoenician and Samaritan should not be unified.

And there seems to me *little* reason why Hebrew/Aramaic "scripts" and 
Phoenician/Samaritan "scripts" should not be unified. The two families 
of styles use the same abjad though with differences in appearance too 
great for most of the letters to be seen as the same letters between the 
two families by appearance alone.

But how much should visual distinction count when it is the *sole* 
difference? It appears to me that this  is where dispute lies mostly, 
despite the precedent of the Unicode encoding of runic "scripts".

There may also be some thinking of HTML/XML/XHTML web display of 
characters where forcing of font is not reliable. One would not want a 
discussion of ancient Phoenician characters to display modern Hebrew 
forms! But this same problem currently applies to runes, medieval Latin 
characters, Han characters and so forth. One shouldn't let the current 
shortcomings of one display method among many dictate Unicode encodings.


Jim Allan 







From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:14 2003
X-UIDL: 8b7fb6ae90c56e9456772ebb66abce97
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <unicode-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:33:42 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aa815-000513-9a
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:33:39 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBR50gl13902;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:00:42 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list unicode); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:00:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tomts45-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts45-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.112])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBR50fl13896;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:00:41 -0500
Received: from smrtytrek.com ([204.101.137.194])
          by tomts45-srv.bellnexxia.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP
          id <20031227050041.EQRJ22468.tomts45-srv.bellnexxia.net@smrtytrek.com>;
          Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:00:41 -0500
Message-ID: <3FED1216.7080908@smrtytrek.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:01:10 -0500
From: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030916
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why Aramaic
 now)
References: <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p06020405bc11f6fe747b@[195.218.110.100]> <3FEC7FC3.8010706@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEC7FC3.8010706@kli.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 11276
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: jallan@smrtytrek.com
Precedence: bulk
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@unicode.org?Subject=help>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:unicode-request@sarasvati.unicode.org?Subject=unsubscribe>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-ID: <unicode.sarasvati.unicode.org>
X-List-ID: <unicode.sarasvati.unicode.org>
X-list: unicode
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> This is a particularly cogent point.  The Mishna (c. 1st century C.E.) 
> does explicitly distinguish between Paleo-Hebrew and Square Hebrew 
> (tractate Yadayim 4:5).  That's not a font-difference, that's a 
> script-difference, I think.

There were no such things as fonts in the 1st century C.E. So it would 
have to be a script-difference. But what is a "script"?

"Script", as I pointed out previously, is a word of wide meaning. The 
difference between Paleo-Hebrew and Square Hebrew is a script 
difference. But the word "script" is also used for different varieties 
of the Square Hebrew script. Check in Google for ["rashi script"] or 
["ari script"] . There is a two-volume book:
_Specimans of Medieval Hebrew Scripts_ by Malachi beit Arie. See 
http://www.bookgallery.co.il/content/english/static/book8177.asp

Check also in Google for ["italic script"], ["uncial script"], 
["blackletter script" OR "black letter script"].

We are talking about exactly the same alphabet (or abjad) here, 
twenty-two letters in the same order with identical meaning originating 
from the same sources recording the identical text with identical spelling.

Compare the gradual change from blackletter "scripts" to Antiqua style 
Latin characters (including the italic script) in Renaissance and 
post-Renaissance Europe. This is similar to the change from Phoenician 
style to Aramaic style.

> This is the other really significant point: Semitic scholars may all 
> agree, but all the world is not Semitic scholarship, and non-{Semitic 
> scholars} have to be satisfied as well.  Since the Semitic scholars 
> are also getting what they want, where's the harm in encoding more 
> alphabets?

Who are these non-scholars who want the Palmyrene script (for example) 
to be encoded separately from other Aramaic scripts? Who are the 
scholars who want this? How many persons in the world want Palmyrene to 
be encoded separately? As many as fifty? Or is there just Michael Everson?

There may be some such scholars, and if so I would like to hear the 
arguments they would bring forth. I'm willing to be convinced by 
arguments. I'm not an *expert* in Aramaic scripts. There aren't that 
many who are.

As to harm, where's the harm in encoding Japanese kanzi separately, or 
Latin uncial, or a complete set of small capitals as a third case? 
Where's the harm in encoding Latin Renaissance scripts separately?

No harm perhaps, but no good either. There is no need or use for such 
encodings. Scholars using Latin letters and non-scholars using Latin 
letters are not asking for separate coding of the script used in the 
Beowulf manuscript and so forth. They don't want every Latin "script" 
variation encoded separately.

>   It's not *that* simple: one could argue (as is being done) that more 
> alphabets would lead to confusion about which one should be used, and 
> mess up searches.  I guess we'd just have to make sure that people 
> doing scholarly work in Semitic languages know to use Hebrew all the 
> time (they already know that), no matter what the language.

But the point is that many of these Semitic language use the *same* 
abjad with different styling, one such styling being the letters encoded 
in Unicode as Hebrew letters with default glyphs of modern Hebrew form. 
Only the letter shapes are different. But between some northwest Semitic 
"scripts" they are not very different, less so than between Latin 
"script" and Latin "script".

Second, people doing work in Semitic languages using the Latin alphabet 
do also often use Latin transliterations  (which do not all agree). I 
assume that there are also standard Cyrillic transliterations used by 
scholars using the Cyrillic alphabet and so forth.

Such things are not for Unicode to regulate.

>   And in cases where material is to be incorporated from non-scholarly 
> sources who used another alphabet, that can be transcoded when entered 
> into databases to keep them uniform if that's what's necessary, but 
> presumably that wouldn't happen often.

What non-scholarly sources? Why would a non-scholar *need* or *desire* 
Palmyrene Aramaic encoded separately while a scholar would not? A change 
to a Palmyrene Aramaic font would do the job as well, for Palmyrene 
Aramaic and any of the various Aramaic "scripts" or "styles" just as a 
font change does for historical styles for European scripts if someone 
want to print of display them. In fact such fonts do poorly, just as a 
general black letter medieval font will do poorly for anything but the 
exact manuscript on which it was based, if based on a particular 
manuscript. There are no fonts before modern times, no exactly 
standardized characters, no exactly standardized type styles. Every 
scribe has a different hand. Characters in simple charts of Semitic 
scripts are often deceptive just as charts of forms taken by medieval 
Latin characters in particular "scripts"/"styles" are deceptive, often 
being a choice made by a scholar from many variants.

Coding Aramaic generally as a single script in Unicode would code all 
the "script" variations. This has already been done by encoding the 
square Aramaic letters in their "modern Hebrew" forms. What more is 
needed for encoding? Similarly Latin has been encoded with modern Latin 
letter forms as the default glyphs and Greek has been encoded with 
modern Greek letter forms as the default glyphs. One might want some 
further final forms and additional punctuation for Aramaic styles (or 
might not). That can be decided.  Otherwise,  there is nothing much more 
to do, save perhaps add a matrix somewhere showing variant glyphs in 
different Aramaic "scripts"/"styles".

To take another example, all runic "scripts" have been unified in 
Unicode, though the runic "scripts" vary greatly in the number of 
letters used and in the values of the letters as well as in their 
appearance. There is more *reason* to produce separate encodings for the 
various runic scripts then for northwest Semitic "scripts", though I've 
heard no complaints about the unification of runic "scripts" and I have 
no complaints myself.

Indeed, there is no *reason* when looking at the values of the 
characters of the Semitic "scripts" related to Phoenician that there 
could not have been a single encoding for the consonants for *all* these 
supposed "scripts" (with separate encodings for the pointings).

A common Semitic encoding *could* still be added to Unicode, with 
individuals deciding whether or not to use that coding also for Arabic, 
Hebrew and Syriac.

I am not recommending this.

I am pointing out how much these scripts are seen to be stylistic 
variants of one another to one who can to some extent read them.

If one must split them up, charts and scholarly books do provide normal 
divisions of "scripts" or "styles" which correspond to those given by 
Michael Everson at http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf 

All that has been well worked out for the common "scripts". A normal 
division is:

1.) Proto-Sinaitic and other early pictographs.
2.) Old Arabic "scripts" (Old South Arabic and Old North Arabic).
3.) Northwest Semitic (the 22-character abjad including Phoenician 
scripts, descendant Aramaic scripts such as square Aramaic used for 
Hebrew and also including Syriac).
4.) Arabic (which though descended from Nabatean Aramaic became so 
different that it might be better encoded separately, perhaps to be 
compared to the Aramaic scripts in somewhat the same way as Latin might 
be compared to early Greek scripts).

The common 22-character Northwest Semitic abjad can be broken down into:

1.) Phoenician/Canaanite scripts including Paleo-Hebrew and its 
descendant Samaritan and also Paleo-Aramaic.
2.) Later Aramaic scripts.
3.) Syriac scripts which differ greatly in appearance from the other 
Aramaic scripts.

Note: special appearance and pointing for Hebrew and Syriac is really 
the only reason to distinguish these particularly. The letters are the 
same in origin and are more the same in meaning than between Greek 
script and variant Greek script.  Greek letters in variant Greek scripts 
however are (generally) far more alike in appearance than the characters 
of the various early northwest Semitic "scripts"/"styles".

But should a difference in appearance count in a decision to code 
separately within Unicode when *every* other feature of two "scripts" is 
identical, including origin?

Hebrew scriptures were first written in the Phoenician script (= 
Paleo-Hebrew), then in Aramaic script which developed *very* slightly in 
medieval times to the normal modern Hebrew script. Emerson's division 
would suggest four different scripts ought to be used for coding the 
same texts with the same logical characters with the same names, that 
texts should be encoded as Phoenician or Aramaic or Hebrew or Samaritan 
depending on style, when when letter-by-letter the same.

Cursive Hebrew still retains for some letter forms the Phoenician shapes 
(which is very strange). Should cursive Hebrew therefore be encoded 
separately?

I don't see any purpose in encoding these scripts differently in Unicode 
when they represent *exactly* the same abjad with only different styling 
of the characters.

Michael Everson at http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf could 
only say:

<< Note that Jony Rosenne once suggested that we should not encode 
Phoenician because it is a
glyph variant of Hebrew. This is not true, despite the one-to-one 
correspondence of character entities. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, for 
instance, where the Tetragrammaton is written with Paleo-Hebrew letters, 
it is (in UCS
encoding terms) the Phoenician script in which the Name is written. >>

First, there is not *just* a one-to-one correspondence of character 
entities but also one-to-one correspondence of the characters in respect 
to their origin and names. They *are* the same abjad in all but style.

Second, if it is argued that the use of Phoenician script for the 
Tetragrammaton in some texts otherwise written in square Aramaic 
characters indicates that Phoenician and square Aramaic characters must 
be encoded separately within Unicode, should not one make the same 
argument for medieval texts with a headline "script" imitating 
traditional Roman square capitals, initial paragraphs in uncial "script" 
and the main text in Carolingian "script" including majuscule and 
miniscule letters?

If Everson's argument is applied to medieval manuscripts, uncial 
"script" and Carolingian "script" and Roman capitals should be encoded 
separately within Unicode.

Also, the Tetragrammaton is represented in the English King James 
translation of Hebrew scriptures and in some more recent translations by 
the word LORD and sometimes GOD in which all but the first letter is 
printed in small capitals. Should small capitals therefore be encoded 
separately in Unicode?

(Note: these small capitals are the small capitals normally used for 
emphasis and usually appear slightly higher than the normal lowercase 
characters lacking ascenders. They are not the same as the lower case 
small capital characters coded in Unicode as phonetic characters which 
properly appear as identical in height to other lower case characters.)

That characters of one style are used in a text written predominately in 
another style does not indicate that the "script" or "style" to which 
they belong needs to be coded independently. That is what markup is for.

Peter Kirk has already made this point in part.

There seems to me *no* reason why most of Aramaic "scripts" should not 
be unified within Unicode with Hebrew and almost *no* reason why 
Phoenician and Samaritan should not be unified.

And there seems to me *little* reason why Hebrew/Aramaic "scripts" and 
Phoenician/Samaritan "scripts" should not be unified. The two families 
of styles use the same abjad though with differences in appearance too 
great for most of the letters to be seen as the same letters between the 
two families by appearance alone.

But how much should visual distinction count when it is the *sole* 
difference? It appears to me that this  is where dispute lies mostly, 
despite the precedent of the Unicode encoding of runic "scripts".

There may also be some thinking of HTML/XML/XHTML web display of 
characters where forcing of font is not reliable. One would not want a 
discussion of ancient Phoenician characters to display modern Hebrew 
forms! But this same problem currently applies to runes, medieval Latin 
characters, Han characters and so forth. One shouldn't let the current 
shortcomings of one display method among many dictate Unicode encodings.


Jim Allan 







From - Sat Dec 27 14:31:16 2003
X-UIDL: faca7be5b187e70a17a7d9cf56b020c8
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:23:09 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaMpt-0002b0-Rs
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:23:05 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMJ7l15916;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:19:12 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:19:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMIfl15910
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:18:51 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id ADC5C40D734; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:17:53 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:18:08 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why  Aramaic
 now)
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1020
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 26/12/2003 18:38, John Hudson wrote:

> 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, maybe Canadian usage is different, but to me if A is a variant of 
B then B is a variant of A, and is A and B are both variants of C and 
not identical, they are also variants of one another. On this basis 
Phoenician is a variant of Hebrew. The matter of temporal priority and 
derivation is separate, and not really very relevant to Unicode as far 
as I can tell.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sat Dec 27 14:41:17 2003
X-UIDL: b8d4401071f2fd6884f01dd66aa22129
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:40:41 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaN6r-0002yC-FT
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:40:37 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMW3l16007;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:32:03 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:32:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury.ccil.org (mercury.ccil.org [192.190.237.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMW2l16001
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:32:02 -0500
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1AaMyT-0007yG-00; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:31:57 -0500
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:31:57 -0500
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why  Aramaic now)
Message-ID: <20031227223157.GL24857@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1021
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Peter Kirk scripsit:

> John, maybe Canadian usage is different, but to me if A is a variant of 
> B then B is a variant of A, and is A and B are both variants of C and 
> not identical, they are also variants of one another. On this basis 
> Phoenician is a variant of Hebrew. 

The question here is whether something is a mere later instance of an
earlier script, or a descendant script.  Certainly Gothic, Cyrillic, and
Coptic are descended from variants of uncial Greek script, but that does
not make them, per se, variants of each other.  A sweet lemon is in one
sense a variant of a lemon; in another sense, it is a variant of an
orange (being in fact a cross between an orange and a sour lemon) -- but
that does not make an orange a variant lemon nor vice versa.

Classical categories just aren't very useful hereabouts.

-- 
Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.
Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x)
Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!
  -- Joyce, _Ulysses_, "Oxen of the Sun"       jcowan@reutershealth.com




From - Sat Dec 27 15:01:16 2003
X-UIDL: e25106d58b545e71f652ddaa3fd4b09a
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:57:09 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaNMp-0003M1-Vj
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:57:08 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMsJl16230;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:54:19 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:54:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMsIl16223
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:54:19 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034867122@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:54:12 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:50:59 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why 
 Aramaic  now)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1024
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 14:18 -0800 2003-12-27, Peter Kirk wrote:

>John, maybe Canadian usage is different, but to me if A is a variant 
>of B then B is a variant of A, and is A and B are both variants of C 
>and not identical, they are also variants of one another. On this 
>basis Phoenician is a variant of Hebrew.

Try printing a newspaper article in Hebrew in one of the newspapers 
in Israel and see if anyone can read it.

>The matter of temporal priority and derivation is separate, and not 
>really very relevant to Unicode as far as I can tell.

It is, indeed, relevant.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sat Dec 27 15:01:17 2003
X-UIDL: 4084cf5f66aed371b22fa1bbee4109ba
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:57:39 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaNNI-0003Nu-Tf
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:57:36 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMsJl16236;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:54:19 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:54:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMsJl16224
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:54:19 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034867123@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:54:13 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020402bc13bd6ab982@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20031227223157.GL24857@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <20031227223157.GL24857@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:51:51 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why 
 Aramaic now)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1025
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 17:31 -0500 2003-12-27, John Cowan wrote:

>The question here is whether something is a mere later instance of an
>earlier script, or a descendant script.  Certainly Gothic, Cyrillic, and
>Coptic are descended from variants of uncial Greek script, but that does
>not make them, per se, variants of each other.

Just so, and we are applying the same criteria to another group of scripts.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sat Dec 27 15:49:57 2003
X-UIDL: fc528dc53b820db4b3ecfbff6481f312
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:43:25 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaO5Z-0004gU-QQ
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:43:21 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRNfOl16830;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:41:24 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:41:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRNfOl16824
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:41:24 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id D1A6D412E50; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:41:06 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:41:23 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why  Aramaic
  now)
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1026
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 27/12/2003 14:50, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 14:18 -0800 2003-12-27, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> John, maybe Canadian usage is different, but to me if A is a variant 
>> of B then B is a variant of A, and is A and B are both variants of C 
>> and not identical, they are also variants of one another. On this 
>> basis Phoenician is a variant of Hebrew.
>
>
> Try printing a newspaper article in Hebrew in one of the newspapers in 
> Israel and see if anyone can read it.


Try printing a newspaper article in one of the newspapers in Ireland in 
Suetterlin (see http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/images/suetterlin.jpg) 
and see if anyone can read it. But Suetterlin is considered a variant of 
Latin.

>
>> The matter of temporal priority and derivation is separate, and not 
>> really very relevant to Unicode as far as I can tell.
>
>
> It is, indeed, relevant.


OK, let us suppose that, as a general principle, there is an already 
encoded script used principally for language A and named after language 
A, and this script was also used for language B before language A was 
ever written. A proposal is made to encode a separate script named after 
language B. Other things being equal, is this temporal priority 
sufficient grounds for encoding a separate script for language B? I can 
see that it might be an argument for renaming the script, but not much else.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sun Dec 28 13:51:35 2003
X-UIDL: 1d1dbb02f3b54b49be38cd9a06199033
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:00:33 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaOM9-0005BR-0j
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:00:29 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRNwUl18593;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:58:30 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:58:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBRNwRl18587
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:58:29 -0500
Received: (qmail 23414 invoked from network); 27 Dec 2003 23:58:23 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 27 Dec 2003 23:58:23 -0000
Message-ID: <3FEE1C9F.1030609@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:58:23 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
CC: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why  Aramaic
  now)
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1027
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 12/27/03 18:41, Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 27/12/2003 14:50, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> At 14:18 -0800 2003-12-27, Peter Kirk wrote:
>>
>>> John, maybe Canadian usage is different, but to me if A is a variant 
>>> of B then B is a variant of A, and is A and B are both variants of C 
>>> and not identical, they are also variants of one another. On this 
>>> basis Phoenician is a variant of Hebrew.
>>
>>
>>
>> Try printing a newspaper article in Hebrew in one of the newspapers 
>> in Israel and see if anyone can read it.
>
>
>
> Try printing a newspaper article in one of the newspapers in Ireland 
> in Suetterlin (see 
> http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/images/suetterlin.jpg) and see if 
> anyone can read it. But Suetterlin is considered a variant of Latin. 

Purely anecdotal experience (mine), but I find the Suetterlin *much* 
easier to read (as Latin), at least partly, than Samaritan (as Hebrew).

~mark






From - Sun Dec 28 13:51:38 2003
X-UIDL: 5b25732172ea0b166f9d1eef9c6113b1
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:07:39 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaOT1-0005LP-V8
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:07:35 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBS058l18618;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:05:08 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:05:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.62])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBS058l18612
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:05:08 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034212920@ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:05:03 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:04:00 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why 
 Aramaic   now)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1028
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 15:41 -0800 2003-12-27, Peter Kirk wrote:

>Try printing a newspaper article in one of the newspapers in Ireland 
>in Suetterlin (see 
>http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/images/suetterlin.jpg) and see if 
>anyone can read it. But Suetterlin is considered a variant of Latin.

The analogy is *not* isomorphic to the situation we have with 
Phoenician and its descendants. Ergo, it is a false analogy.

What is it with you? You're there trying to "trick" me into seeing 
the light? Oh, look. The sniping has started again. And there I 
thought we had made progress last week when I altered the Roadmaps.

>>>The matter of temporal priority and derivation is separate, and 
>>>not really very relevant to Unicode as far as I can tell.
>>
>>It is, indeed, relevant.
>
>OK, let us suppose that, as a general principle, there is an already 
>encoded script used principally for language A and named after 
>language A, and this script was also used for language B before 
>language A was ever written. A proposal is made to encode a separate 
>script named after language B. Other things being equal, is this 
>temporal priority sufficient grounds for encoding a separate script 
>for language B? I can see that it might be an argument for renaming 
>the script, but not much else.

Well, colleagues, there is going to be a proposal to encode Samaritan 
as distinct from Hebrew and Phoenician and Greek and Latin and 
Ethiopic and Ugaritic. There is also going to be a proposal to encode 
Phoenician as distinct from Hebrew and Samaritan and Greek and Latin 
and Ethiopic and Ugaritic. Hashing this over and over and over again 
before those proposals appear is not a particularly good use of time, 
is it?

That you cannot seem to imagine that there are *other* clients of 
Phoenician and other scripts than *your* particular brand of 
semiticist is peculiar to me. Phoenician had many children, ONE of 
which is Hebrew. Another is Samaritan. Another is Arabic. Another is 
Syriac. Another is Mandaic. Another is Greek. Another is Old Italic. 
Another is Latin.

People who study the history of their alphabets, and they do, and 
they teach this lore to their children in books and on the Internet 
and all that. And the mother of those scripts is Phoenician. She is 
*not* Hebrew. Whether a semiticist ever encodes a Phoenician sentence 
in Phoenician is up to that semiticist. But there's no way you can 
expect everyone else to treat it as a glyph variant of Hebrew just 
because you do.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sun Dec 28 14:41:26 2003
X-UIDL: 6d41cefb193e9e40356d6498843bf148
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:31:36 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AajRY-0001Z0-Bi
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:31:28 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBSMUL825817;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:30:21 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:30:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBSMUK825810
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:30:20 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 6EE79413F7F; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:30:00 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:30:15 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why  Aramaic
   now)
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1030
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 27/12/2003 16:04, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 15:41 -0800 2003-12-27, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> Try printing a newspaper article in one of the newspapers in Ireland 
>> in Suetterlin (see 
>> http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/images/suetterlin.jpg) and see if 
>> anyone can read it. But Suetterlin is considered a variant of Latin.
>
>
> The analogy is *not* isomorphic to the situation we have with 
> Phoenician and its descendants. Ergo, it is a false analogy.
>
> What is it with you? You're there trying to "trick" me into seeing the 
> light? Oh, look. The sniping has started again. And there I thought we 
> had made progress last week when I altered the Roadmaps.
>
Michael, I dropped this matter, went away for four days and had lots of 
mince pies and other food and drink. I came back expecting that the 
matter would have died. Instead I found well over a hundred messages on 
these two lists on this matter, the great majority (apart from yours) 
opposing your insistence on encoding separately a large number of 
additional Semitic scripts. So it is not just me, there are several 
others out there taking my side, and I don't see anyone really 
supporting you.

No, the situation I describe is not isomorphic. Phoenician script 
differs from unpointed Hebrew script ***ONLY*** in the glyph shapes. 
There is much more to distinguish Latin script, as regularly printed in 
Irish newspapers, from the Suetterlin example I sent you. For Suetterlin 
not only has mostly quite different glyph shapes, it also has complex 
joining behaviour probably with contextual forms. So technically there 
is a much stronger case for calling Suetterlin a separate script than 
for doing the same for Phoenician.

I take Mark's point that Suetterlin is easier to read than Samaritan, 
but that is to a large extent because of the partial resemblance between 
Suetterlin and common styles of American handwriting, which Mark has 
learned to read. Perhaps I should find an example of Cyrillic 
handwriting and ask list members familiar with Cyrillic script only from 
the reference glyphs to match it with Unicode code points. This is 
something which needs to be learned, just as does any completely 
different set of glyphs, just as do Phoenician and Samaritan glyphs. I 
can see that such glyph shape differences might be taken as a criterion 
for distinguishing a different script. But if that criterion is applied 
consistently we end up with several new scripts for Latin and Greek 
handwritten styles.

And, by the way, in case you say that Unicode doesn't encode 
handwriting, remember that all known examples of Phoenician script are 
handwritten.

>>>> The matter of temporal priority and derivation is separate, and not 
>>>> really very relevant to Unicode as far as I can tell.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is, indeed, relevant.
>>
>>
>> OK, let us suppose that, as a general principle, there is an already 
>> encoded script used principally for language A and named after 
>> language A, and this script was also used for language B before 
>> language A was ever written. A proposal is made to encode a separate 
>> script named after language B. Other things being equal, is this 
>> temporal priority sufficient grounds for encoding a separate script 
>> for language B? I can see that it might be an argument for renaming 
>> the script, but not much else.
>
>
> Well, colleagues, there is going to be a proposal to encode Samaritan 
> as distinct from Hebrew and Phoenician and Greek and Latin and 
> Ethiopic and Ugaritic. There is also going to be a proposal to encode 
> Phoenician as distinct from Hebrew and Samaritan and Greek and Latin 
> and Ethiopic and Ugaritic. Hashing this over and over and over again 
> before those proposals appear is not a particularly good use of time, 
> is it?
>
You, Michael, are welcome to propose Phoenician as a separate script. 
And I have the right to propose Suetterlin as a separate script. But I 
realise that my hypothetical proposal is unlikely to succeed because it 
is technically doubtful, unnecessary, and not required by a community of 
users. So I will not waste my time or anyone else's by proposing it. 
Michael, I suggest that you come to the same conclusion about 
Phoenician. After all, preparing a proposal which no one wants or needs 
and which is likely to be shot down is far more of a waste of time than 
the current discussions.

> That you cannot seem to imagine that there are *other* clients of 
> Phoenician and other scripts than *your* particular brand of 
> semiticist is peculiar to me. Phoenician had many children, ONE of 
> which is Hebrew. Another is Samaritan. Another is Arabic. Another is 
> Syriac. Another is Mandaic. Another is Greek. Another is Old Italic. 
> Another is Latin.
>
OK, you can name scripts, but can you name other brands of Semiticist? 
Who are your "*other* clients? Name names, please. If you come up with 
any community of scholars etc who actually wants to use a separately 
encoded Phoenician script, I will withdraw my objections. (Note that it 
is the existence of the Samaritan community which allows me to 
provisionally accept the Samaritan script, if that community wants it to 
be encoded; if it is encoded separately, it would make sense to use this 
script also for Phoenician.)

> People who study the history of their alphabets, and they do, and they 
> teach this lore to their children in books and on the Internet and all 
> that. And the mother of those scripts is Phoenician. She is *not* 
> Hebrew. Whether a semiticist ever encodes a Phoenician sentence in 
> Phoenician is up to that semiticist. But there's no way you can expect 
> everyone else to treat it as a glyph variant of Hebrew just because 
> you do.


People who study the history of alphabets need to distinguish many more 
glyph sets than the few you have proposed for the roadmap. They need to 
distinguish an indefinite number of different glyph shapes. This can be 
done with any degree of precision only by encoding individual images for 
glyph shapes, and rather more approximately by using different fonts.

And what about people who study the history of the Latin alphabet as 
used, for example, in the different stages of the English language? Are 
you going to allow them to encode each script variant they study 
individually? Or are you going to expect them to treat their scripts as 
glyph variants of Latin "just because you do"?

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sun Dec 28 16:41:21 2003
X-UIDL: a8467687610e80afaaae7860968492bb
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:31:30 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AalJd-0004VC-E1
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:31:25 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0SI829486;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:28:18 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:28:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury.ccil.org (mercury.ccil.org [192.190.237.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0SI829478
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:28:18 -0500
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1AalGb-0005YD-00; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:28:17 -0500
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:28:17 -0500
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why  Aramaic now)
Message-ID: <20031229002817.GG19753@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1035
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Peter Kirk scripsit:

> OK, you can name scripts, but can you name other brands of Semiticist? 
> Who are your "*other* clients? Name names, please. If you come up with 
> any community of scholars etc who actually wants to use a separately 
> encoded Phoenician script, I will withdraw my objections. 

It's important to keep firmly in mind that scholars are not the only,
often not the principal, consumers of archaic scripts.  The amount of
Runic, Rovasiras, and Ogham text produced by 20th and 21st century
people for purposes ranging from divination to passing notes at school
almost certainly swamps the ancient inscriptions *and* the commentaries
on them.

> It is the existence of the Samaritan community which allows me to 
> provisionally accept the Samaritan script, if that community wants it to 
> be encoded; if it is encoded separately, it would make sense to use this 
> script also for Phoenician.

I agree.

-- 
If you understand,                      John Cowan
   things are just as they are;         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
if you do not understand,               http://www.reutershealth.com
   things are just as they are.         jcowan@reutershealth.com




From - Sun Dec 28 16:49:55 2003
X-UIDL: deeeeb58dec92b5a80a30aacd554d602
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:47:47 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AalZS-0004ok-5U
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:47:46 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0iR829584;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:44:27 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:44:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0iM829578
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:44:27 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 5E5AA407270; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:44:03 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEF78E5.8030303@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:44:21 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why  Aramaic
 now)
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <20031229002817.GG19753@mercury.ccil.org>
In-Reply-To: <20031229002817.GG19753@mercury.ccil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1037
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 16:28, John Cowan wrote:

>Peter Kirk scripsit:
>
>  
>
>>OK, you can name scripts, but can you name other brands of Semiticist? 
>>Who are your "*other* clients? Name names, please. If you come up with 
>>any community of scholars etc who actually wants to use a separately 
>>encoded Phoenician script, I will withdraw my objections. 
>>    
>>
>
>It's important to keep firmly in mind that scholars are not the only,
>often not the principal, consumers of archaic scripts.  The amount of
>Runic, Rovasiras, and Ogham text produced by 20th and 21st century
>people for purposes ranging from divination to passing notes at school
>almost certainly swamps the ancient inscriptions *and* the commentaries
>on them.
>
>  
>
OK, but most of this modern use is simply as ciphers, and so justifies 
encoding of these scripts no more than it does of Pigpen. You just wrote 
"Yet nobody proposes to encode Pigpen, despite its unquestionable 
unintelligibility and use in plain-text documents." And much of the rest 
is not plain text, as you also pointed out.

So I am happy to drop "of scholars" and reword what I wrote to Michael 
before: If you come up with any community who actually want to use a 
separately encoded Phoenician script for plain text and not as a cipher, 
I will withdraw my objections.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sun Dec 28 17:30:27 2003
X-UIDL: c07094dfa1ccf16fb081935d15df2d84
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:22:26 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aam6v-0005SB-4t
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:22:21 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1Km830742;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:20:48 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:20:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury.ccil.org (mercury.ccil.org [192.190.237.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1Kl830736
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:20:47 -0500
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1Aam5O-0006ok-00; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:20:46 -0500
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:20:45 -0500
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why  Aramaic now)
Message-ID: <20031229012045.GI19753@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <20031229002817.GG19753@mercury.ccil.org> <3FEF78E5.8030303@qaya.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3FEF78E5.8030303@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1049
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Peter Kirk scripsit:

> OK, but most of this modern use is simply as ciphers, and so justifies 
> encoding of these scripts no more than it does of Pigpen. 

They may be ciphers in the sense that the primary purpose is secrecy,
but not in the sense that mere font substitution will suffice.  Rovasiras
is a distinctly different writing system for Hungarian, as Runic is for
the modern Scandinavian languages.  The Runes used in _The Hobbit_ are
similarly not quite a transcription of modern English orthography,
though the language is modern English.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves."
        --Murray Gell-Mann




From - Mon Dec 29 06:54:48 2003
X-UIDL: 28b762b59931ff31afcdaf28b5e80e17
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:45:33 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aaye9-0006eV-Gv
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:45:29 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEe8814656;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:40:08 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:40:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80805.mail.yahoo.com (web80805.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBTEe7814644
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:40:07 -0500
Message-ID: <20031229144006.43563.qmail@web80805.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [63.164.145.85] by web80805.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 06:40:06 PST
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 06:40:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why  Aramaic   now)
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 1068
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

          Elaine Keown
          still in Texas

Dear Michael Everson and Lists:

Michael Everson wrote:
> And the mother of those scripts is Phoenician. She
is 
> *not* Hebrew. 

The mother script is probably the southern Sinai or
Wadi el-Hol script, written in about 1,700 B.C.E. by
Aramaeans who worked either in the copper mines of the
southern Sinai or were mercenaries in an Egyptian army
in the Western Desert.  

I also think that your attitude is that of a Hellenist
or Indo-Europeanist, who looks at everything from the
perspective of Athens.  Semitics is "Praeparatio
Hellenika"--its other aspects are less important, and
hence not to be emphasized in computerization or
anything else.  

Not all roads lead to Athens, Michael Everson--some of
them go elsewhere--Elaine Keown

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Mon Dec 29 07:54:48 2003
X-UIDL: d04b7477bf0209d7a7346189ad4eb284
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:45:00 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AazZd-0000JD-Lq
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:44:53 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTFhR831860;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:43:27 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:43:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTFgX831582;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:42:33 -0500
Received: from [195.218.107.127] (unverified [195.218.107.127]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034957081@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net>;
 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:42:26 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020403bc15fa8f30f3@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20031229144006.43563.qmail@web80805.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20031229144006.43563.qmail@web80805.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:39:56 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org, unicode@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why 
 Aramaic   now)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1073
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 06:40 -0800 2003-12-29, Elaine Keown wrote:

>Michael Everson wrote:
>  > And the mother of those scripts is Phoenician. She is *not* Hebrew.
>
>The mother script is probably the southern Sinai or Wadi el-Hol 
>script, written in about 1,700 B.C.E. by Aramaeans who worked either 
>in the copper mines of the southern Sinai or were mercenaries in an 
>Egyptian army in the Western Desert.

That would be the grandmother. :-)

>I also think that your attitude is that of a Hellenist or 
>Indo-Europeanist, who looks at everything from the perspective of 
>Athens.

Think what you like.

>Semitics is "Praeparatio Hellenika"--its other aspects are less important, and
>hence not to be emphasized in computerization or anything else.

I cannot make sense of this at all.

>Not all roads lead to Athens, Michael Everson--some of them go elsewhere

What the bejeesus are you on about, Elaine?
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Mon Dec 29 08:24:49 2003
X-UIDL: 73fec459ee1c1280710f767ec92eb855
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:18:03 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab05d-0001Xm-UB
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:17:57 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTGDv808629;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:13:57 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:13:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBTGDv808612
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:13:57 -0500
Received: (qmail 26460 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2003 16:13:53 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 29 Dec 2003 16:13:53 -0000
Message-ID: <3FF052BF.4070007@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:13:51 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
CC: hebrew@unicode.org, unicode@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why  Aramaic
   now)
References: <20031229144006.43563.qmail@web80805.mail.yahoo.com> <p06020403bc15fa8f30f3@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020403bc15fa8f30f3@[192.168.0.2]>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1075
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

I don't really see this either, but even if it's correct, aren't 
Hellenists and Indo-Europeanists supposed to be supported by Unicode 
too?  Maybe that's the elusive user-base?

~mark

On 12/29/03 10:39, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 06:40 -0800 2003-12-29, Elaine Keown wrote:
>
>> I also think that your attitude is that of a Hellenist or 
>> Indo-Europeanist, who looks at everything from the perspective of 
>> Athens.
>
>
> Think what you like.
>
>> Semitics is "Praeparatio Hellenika"--its other aspects are less 
>> important, and
>> hence not to be emphasized in computerization or anything else.
>
>
> I cannot make sense of this at all.
>
>> Not all roads lead to Athens, Michael Everson--some of them go elsewhere
>
>
> What the bejeesus are you on about, Elaine?






From - Mon Dec 29 08:44:33 2003
X-UIDL: 71b72f0188fa866ed5de75dc1dc3184f
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:42:48 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab0Te-0002Fi-ME
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:42:46 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTGf0818045;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:41:00 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:41:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTGex818033
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:41:00 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id A033540D4AE; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:40:46 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF05919.3040100@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:40:57 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why  Aramaic
   now)
References: <20031229144006.43563.qmail@web80805.mail.yahoo.com> <p06020403bc15fa8f30f3@[192.168.0.2]> <3FF052BF.4070007@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FF052BF.4070007@kli.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1076
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 29/12/2003 08:13, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> I don't really see this either, but even if it's correct, aren't 
> Hellenists and Indo-Europeanists supposed to be supported by Unicode 
> too?  Maybe that's the elusive user-base?
>
Yes, of course they are, but Unicode needs to ask what they want a 
script for before encoding it. If they want to write (plain) text in 
Phoenician script, fair enough, but I have never heard of Indo-European 
text being written in this script (ignoring modern ciphers), and why 
would Indo-Europeanists be interested in Semitic plain text? Well, 
perhaps they are, but that needs to be demonstrated. But if their only 
interest in Phoenician script is to illustrate their books with tables 
of ancestral glyph shapes, they should be reminded that Unicode encodes 
characters, not glyphs, and advised to use images for their illustrations.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 08:44:48 2003
X-UIDL: fd0c2423932d11dfdd883bf9f5a46783
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:44:41 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab0VT-0002Hh-JB
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:44:39 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTGgo818580;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:42:50 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:42:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from priv-edtnes04.telusplanet.net (outbound02.telus.net [199.185.220.221])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTGgn818574;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:42:50 -0500
Received: from Sophia.tiro.com ([66.183.172.245])
          by priv-edtnes04.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP
          id <20031229164242.CSOB11257.priv-edtnes04.telusplanet.net@Sophia.tiro.com>;
          Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:42:42 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.1.20031229083733.02d01f98@pop3.portal.ca>
X-Sender: tiro@pop3.portal.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:42:22 -0800
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why
   Aramaic   now)
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org, unicode@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <p06020403bc15fa8f30f3@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <20031229144006.43563.qmail@web80805.mail.yahoo.com>
 <20031229144006.43563.qmail@web80805.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1077
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: tiro@tiro.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 07:39 AM 12/29/2003, Michael Everson wrote:

>>I also think that your attitude is that of a Hellenist or 
>>Indo-Europeanist, who looks at everything from the perspective of Athens.
>
>Think what you like.
>
>>Semitics is "Praeparatio Hellenika"--its other aspects are less 
>>important, and
>>hence not to be emphasized in computerization or anything else.
>
>I cannot make sense of this at all.
>
>>Not all roads lead to Athens, Michael Everson--some of them go elsewhere
>
>What the bejeesus are you on about, Elaine?

Without needing to accuse Michael of being a Hellenist to the detriment of 
Semitic scripts, I think Elaine raises a potentially valid point about the 
many books to which he refers. I too have read many texts that trace the 
alphabet to the Phoenicians and stop there, because that is the limit of 
the author's knowledge and interest (a knowledge and interest defined by 
other books which repeat the same information).

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_





From - Mon Dec 22 12:05:12 2003
X-UIDL: 11618d11128b06d7966f73fd2e8a3cfd
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:55:59 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYW9d-0008OA-GY
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:55:49 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBMJrvR11245;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:53:57 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:53:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80701.mail.yahoo.com (web80701.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.58])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBMJruR11238
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:53:56 -0500
Message-ID: <20031222195350.34441.qmail@web80701.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [66.76.153.207] by web80701.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:53:50 PST
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:53:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
To: hebrew@unicode.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 990
Subject:  (no subject)
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

      Elaine Keown
      still in Texas

Dear Rick, Peter, List:

> I have received, and will put into the UTC doc 
> register, your Error Report regarding the roadmap.

Thank you, Rick, for doing this so promptly.
And thank you, Peter, for going forward.  

I think the great majority of people who work with
22-letter variants of "Semitic alphabetic" would agree
with Jony Rosenne, Peter, (and others who have written
me privately) that all or most of these variants are
"the same script."  

Where people would differ is where "sameness"
starts--in 1200 B.C.E. or earlier?--and where the
"borders" of the mainstream of variants is.  I think
there's a "border" somewhere between early Parthian
and Pahlavanik, but I didn't completely describe it
yet.  

For the earlier material, there are so many
conflicting academic opinions, that it might be
difficult to get a consensus.  

I will send Peter Kirk the materials I already did on
Aramaic alphabetic unification, in case they are
helpful. --Elaine

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Mon Dec 22 16:35:13 2003
X-UIDL: 3f034dbc6a96a6314b4af05ae12360a4
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:25:13 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYaMJ-0008CG-W6
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:25:12 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBN0FUR13453;
	Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:15:30 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:15:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBN0FSR13446
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:15:30 -0500
Received: (qmail 14723 invoked from network); 23 Dec 2003 00:15:24 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 23 Dec 2003 00:15:24 -0000
Message-ID: <3FE7891A.9030501@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:15:22 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
CC: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: (no subject)
References: <20031222195350.34441.qmail@web80701.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031222195350.34441.qmail@web80701.mail.yahoo.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 991
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 12/22/03 14:53, Elaine Keown wrote:

>      Elaine Keown
>      still in Texas
>
>Dear Rick, Peter, List:
>
>  
>
>>I have received, and will put into the UTC doc 
>>register, your Error Report regarding the roadmap.
>>    
>>
>
>Thank you, Rick, for doing this so promptly.
>And thank you, Peter, for going forward.  
>
>I think the great majority of people who work with
>22-letter variants of "Semitic alphabetic" would agree
>with Jony Rosenne, Peter, (and others who have written
>me privately) that all or most of these variants are
>"the same script."  
>
That's basically what you're going to need: evidence of scholarly 
consensus that Hebrew script is The Way To Go for this, not just a few 
voices crying in the wilderness (I say "you" because in all honesty, I 
don't fully agree with you myself.  But I can neither attack your 
position nor defend the opposite position with any coherence; I'll leave 
that to you and others, who actually know what you/they're talking about)

~mark





From - Tue Dec 23 09:13:21 2003
X-UIDL: f28e925c446c1508fc711415e2534498
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:11:38 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AYq4D-0004gO-SM
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:11:33 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNH7aR07073;
	Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:07:37 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:07:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80705.mail.yahoo.com (web80705.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.62])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBNH7aR07064
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:07:36 -0500
Message-ID: <20031223170735.37625.qmail@web80705.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [63.164.145.85] by web80705.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:07:35 PST
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:07:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: unification and Hebrew's true technical problems
To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>, hebrew@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <3FE7891A.9030501@kli.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 996
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

          Elaine Keown
          central Texas

Dear Mark and List:

> That's basically what you're going to need: evidence
> of scholarly consensus that Hebrew script is The Way
> To Go for this, not just a few voices crying in the 
> wilderness (I say "you" because in all honesty, I 
> don't fully agree with you myself.  But I can

There have been about 70 Semitic languages on Planet
Earth, but about 8 of them are extinct.  

The earliest written Semitic evidence is from
Akkadian, which was written since 3,000 or so B.C.E. 
Then about 1,700 B.C.E. they wrote Ugaritic (28-29
sounds) in an alphabet, now in Unicode, which looks
like cuneiform.  

Then from 1,700 to 1,150 or so B.C.E. they have a
period of early Semitic alphabetic script variations
that the *real* scholars argue over vehemently--what
language is a tiny epigraph in?--is this really
writing or just an artistic scribble?--what order is
the scrap of text in, right-to-left or
left-to-right?--how old is it really?--what do the
words really mean?  Everything is up for grabs then. 
Many of the texts are from 1/2 a letter to 10 letters,
written on broken pottery, the "post-it notes" of the
near east.  

But in 1,150 B.C.E. we get something that's definitely
Hebrew, no question about it--it greatly resembles the
Biblical Hebrew we know.

Semitic languages are very close to each other, sort
of the same distance from each other as Romance
languages, they tell me.  So Hebrew and Aramaic are
about as different as Italian and French, and Akkadian
is as different from them as Portuguese or maybe
Romanian.

But Semitics are hard to work with and Hebrew and
Aramaic are the *worst.*  The original "Proto-Semitic"
language had about 28-29 sounds--Arabic today and
Ugaritic then had this number.  

But Hebrew and Aramaic dropped about 6 sounds by the
way, so they have all these homonyms in the Tanakh. 
But in Ugaritic and Arabic there are fewer homonyms,
because they stayed closer to Proto-Semitic and kept
the original segment inventory.  

In the Tanakh there are a few thousand rare
words--1,600 words occur one time each, then there are
words that occur twice, three times, etc.  At Harvard
Divinity, in Rapid Reading, Prof. Hackett made us
learn all the words that occur 10 times or more.  But
there are a lot more words that occur 9 or fewer
times.  

So in difficult texts--i.e., Job would be the best
example--there are so many rare words that we can
hardly translate the end of Job, where God is
speaking.  At Qumran they had 2 Aramaic translations
of Job--they must have thought it was really hard,
too.

So what will Semitists do when they finally write a
Unicode-compatible cognate dictionary for Hebrew, say,
for the thousands of rare words?  They will do what
they've been doing for 200 years, go looking in
Ugaritic, Arabic, Syriac, Ammorite, Moabite, Ammonite,
Yaudic, Moabite, Akkadian, and so forth for words
whose meaning we actually *know* that seem to be
parallels to the Bible's hundreds of rare words.  

So that's the real deal with Hebrew.  

In Unicode we *already* have 4 blocks of Semitic
alphabetic scripts:  Ugaritic (the "long" alphabet),
Arabic (the "long" alphabet), Hebrew (the "short"
alphabet), and Syriac (also short).  And they are
working on the Akkadian.  

Why have more Semitic alphabetic blocks?  Don't we
have enough problems already?  

Michael Everson raised the issue of whether we are
dealing with abjads here (that is, a purely
consonantal script).  But actually, since about 870
B.C.E., Hebrew and Aramaic used the "semivowels," W,
Y, and also H to 
represent some vowels.  So abjad-ness disappears in
Hebrew and Aramaic then, about 870 B.C.E.  

Today I know zilch about Phoenician (except it's
polyscriptal, written in Roman script later), so I
don't know if Phoenician ever left abjad-hood.  

Elaine

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:01 2003
X-UIDL: 25515d390b1fd44a39d6e3c224c01774
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:58:35 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aa1qk-0003BJ-1s
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:58:34 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBQMp0l08469;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:51:00 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:51:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net (mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.48])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBQMhnl08363;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:43:49 -0500
Received: from sdn-ap-040dcwashp0459.dialsprint.net ([207.9.249.205])
	by mallard.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 1Aa0gI-0006hk-00; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:43:43 -0800
From: "Dean Snyder" <dean.snyder@jhu.edu>
To: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>, <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:44:08 -0500
Message-Id: <20031226224408.29900@smtp.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <p06020405bc11f6fe747b@[195.218.110.100]>
References: <p06020405bc11f6fe747b@[195.218.110.100]>
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail 4.2 us Carbon <http://www.ctmdev.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1006
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: dean.snyder@jhu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael Everson wrote at 2:57 PM on Friday, December 26, 2003:

>At 02:23 -0500 2003-12-26, Dean Snyder wrote:
>>What does chronological priority have to 
>>do with establishing separate encodings?
>
>The source of scripts and characters has often been a criterion for 
>their disunification. Ages ago I showed that the unification of YOGH 
>and EZH was incorrect because the two letters had different sources. 
>The same is true for scripts.
>
>To sketch the relationships: Canaanite split into Phoenician and 
>Aramaic. Paleo-Hebrew derives from Phoenician, as does Samaritan. 
>Square Hebrew on the other hand derives from Aramaic. There are nodes 
>on this tree which we are proposing to investigate for encoding.

Sounds very similar to the development of the Latin script variants,
doesn't it?


>>Should Latin be separately encoded?
>
>Latin *has* been separately encoded.

Not the Latin that is comparable to the Phoenician we are talking about.

I am using Latin the way you are using Phoenician, concretely and
historically, not abstractly as it is used in Unicode where even the
modern IPA character inventions are dubbed "LATIN" this and "LATIN" that.
(My abstract name for the script of which Phoenician is a member is
"Ancient Northwest Semitic".) 

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. And so
ancient Latin is NOT separately encoded; just as English, German,
Croatian, Pinyin Latin, IPA, etc. are not separately encoded. The
Latinate script variants are all UNIFIED; and most often bear names with
the abstraction "LATIN" prepended, something you refuse to entertain for
the ancient Northwest Semitic script, of which Phoenician is but one
member. And this ancient script system has far more in common amongst its
variant glyphic realizations than those subsumed under the rubric "LATIN"
in Unicode.


>>On the other hand, if you mean that both Hebrew and Phoenician are 
>>not glyphic variants of the same script system, then I know of no 
>>scholar who would agree with you.
>
>Every historian of writing describes the various scripts *as* 
>scripts, and recognizes them differently. 

These are typically either paleographers, who are more interested in
emphasizing glyphic variation than commonality, or they are script
taxonomists intent on delineating lines of derivation and innovation. In
neither case are they encoders, and in neither case do they use the word
"script" with that meaning invested in it by Unicodists.

Furthermore, I would venture to say that Unicode encoders met extensive,
entrenched opposition by Chinese, Japanese, and Korean scholars in the
effort to unify CJK, which makes it all the more striking that NOW it is
the Unicodists who are resisting the unifiers of the ancient Northwest
Semitic script while using similar cultural and historical rationalizations.


>We have bilinguals where 
>people are distinguishing the scripts in text

Show me one that is not a font issue - much like switching in and out of
Fraktur type in modern German.


>we have discussion, 
>for instance in the Babylonian Talmud, specifically discussing the 
>different writing systems as different.

You need to cite these. I suspect these are not encoding level
discussions but rather historical/cultural/paleographical discussions.


>These scripts share a basic structure, sure.

That is quite an understatement if you glanced at the glyph chart I
attached to a previous email or if you support the unification of "Latin"
characters in Unicode.


>But Phoenician a glyph variant of Square Hebrew? 
>Certainly not.

You are merely singling out end points from what I characterized as "a
continuum of glyphic
variation within a single script system". 

Again, if you separate out Phoenician, where will you stop? And on what
bases are you making these distinctions?

But, actually, I HAVE suggested that it might be a good idea to encode
the ancient Northwest Semitic script, which, though it includes Old
Hebrew, would not include Modern Hebrew.


>>Ancient Phoenician, Punic, Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and Aramaic are
>>different dialects and/or languages commonly written with the same right-
>>to-left script system
>
>Again here you are using a "term", "script system" in an undefined way.
>
>>containing the same 22 non-numeric characters and exhibiting no more 
>>glyphic variation over a period of a thousand years than that seen 
>>in the various manifestations of the Latin alphabet.
>
>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. 


>Research as to which 
>has not yet been completed apart from the initial work done in 1999 
>resulting in the current Roadmap.

>>(For a sampling of ancient Phoenician, Moabite, and Hebrew glyphic 
>>variation see the attached script chart taken from Gibson's Textbook 
>>of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions - volume 2 has samples of Aramaic 
>>glyphic variants.)
>
>There are many such charts; the resolution of the one you sent is not 
>sufficient to make use of it.
>
>>I see no justification for separately encoding Phoenician.
>
>Fine. I do, including but not limited to meta-discussion of writing 
>systems in a very large body of secondary literature.

Can you point to ANY discussion in the secondary literature that concerns
itself with the ancient Northwest Semitic "writing system", in the
Unicode sense of that phrase, which, is, of course, what we are talking
about here? What we have, I suggest, is a lot of paleographical and
taxonomic literature, but no (?) encoding related literature.


>>If you did encode it, where, and on what bases, then would you draw 
>>the lines for the separate encodings of the other ancient Northwest 
>>Semitic languages and periods (because that's what these are, other 
>>languages and periods, and not other scripts)?
>
>This is the specific work we have not done yet, but it's not rocket 
>science.

You'll change your mind if and when you delve into it.

But the problem is, you've already made up your mind beforehand - "There
is zero chance that Phoenician will be considered to be a glyph variant
of Hebrew. Zero chance.".


>Students of writing are able to distinguish early Aramaic 
>from Phoenician because of certain characteristics in the ductus for 
>instance. 

Ductus is, of course, paleography, aka glyph variation.


>Also there was the introduction of the matres lectionis.

These are not new characters; these are the same old characters used in
new, polyvalent ways. That does not a new script or encoding make.


>>What we have here is a continuum of glyphic variation within a 
>>single script system.
>
>Here we have a range of related but distinct scripts.

What exactly are the script distinctives you have in mind here?


>Compare Khutsuri (comprising Asomtavruli and Nuskhuri) and Mkhedruli
Georgian.

If they're analogous in development and manifestation to the ancient
Northwest Semitic script, on what bases were they encoded separately?
Cultural bases? Political bases?


>>  >The number of books about writing systems, from children's books to books
>>  >for adults, which contain references to the Phoenician alphabet as the
>>  >parent to both Etruscan and Hebrew, are legion.
>>
>>Using the same reasoning, we should separately encode Latin, the 
>>parent script for English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, ...
>
>You appear to have reasoned about this matter in a different way than 
>I have, for what you suggest would not follow from what I have 
>suggested.

You: Lots of sources talk about Phoenician script being the parent of
Hebrew script.
Me: Lots of sources talk about Latin script being the parent of English
script.

You: Therefore we need separate encodings for Phoenician and Hebrew.
Me: Therefore we need separate encodings for Latin and English.

How am I reasoning "in a different way" than you are?


>>  >Some scholars may decide to transliterate all Phoenician texts into
>>>Hebrew script and read only that, and retrieve it from their
>>>databases, and that is perfectly fine. Lots of people transliterate
>>>Sanskrit into Latin and never use Devanagari.
>>
>>By definition, one cannot "transliterate ... Phoenician texts into 
>>Hebrew script".
>
>Of course you can.

Transliteration means substituting one set of different but "analogous"
characters for another. If the characters are the SAME in both source and
destination what possible meaning does the word "substitute" convey?
Every character in Phoenician has its exact character equivalent in Old
Hebrew. And fonts will take care of the desired display issues
completely, just as they do for Fraktur, et al.


>>Unlike your example of Devanagari and Latin, Phoenician and Hebrew 
>>share a common script system.
>
>You can transliterate Devanagari Sanskrit into Sinhala and Burmese, 
>which scripts share the same structure. Latin shares a different 
>structure, it is true.
>
>>I think the real problem here arises from the fact that medieval and
>>modern Hebrew, a superset of the ancient Hebrew script, with vowels,
>>punctuation, and cantillation marks added to late glyphic variants of the
>>22 ancient Northwest Semitic consonants, was encoded in Unicode without
>>considering Phoenician, Aramaic, etc. at the same time, and now there is
>>resistance to using Unicode characters with "Hebrew" in their names to
>>write Phoenician, Aramaic, etc.
>
>I think the "real problem" here arises from the fact that some 
>scholars, familiar with Hebrew, find it easier to read early Semitic 
>texts in square script than in the originals.

Well I, for one, prefer to read in more paleographically relevant
renderings; and fonts combined with markup will, of course, take care of
everything.


>The same thing happens 
>with Runic and Gothic and Glagolitic and Khutsuri, and indeed 
>Cuneiform, where Latin is often preferred (regardless of the 
>structure of the writing systems).

"Transliteration" for cuneiform is entirely non-analogous because of this
script's massive polyvalency, something not encountered at this kind or
scale in ancient Northwest Semitic script. Cuneiformists use the word
"transliteration" not for context-free, descriptive character
substitution but for context-bound, interpretive syllabographic,
ideographic, or taxographic substitution; in short, "transliteration" for
cuneiformists represents how, out of a myriad of context-free
possibilities, the "transliterator" UNDERSTANDS the text in its context
should be read. This is NOT how you and I are using the term
"transliteration".


>The needs of those scholars is 
>met: they can use Hebrew and Latin with diacritics. No problem. The 
>needs of other clients of the Universal Character Set, no matter how 
>"unscholarly" they may be, will be met by encoding appropriate nodes 
>in the Semitic tree.

So, you're NOT going to listen to the scholars in the field who want to
unify and will be the most serious and main users of the encoding, but
you WILL listen to the amateurs and hobbyists?! I'm not disparaging
script amateurs and hobbyists at all, in fact I wish there were more of
them (with money, to support script encoding initiatives :-)). But to
reject the advice of the very community that provides them with most of
their raw material seems like the tail wagging the dog, especially when
categorical decisions have already been made while you admit that
"Research ... has not yet been completed".

We do not separately encode all the paleographic and epigraphic variants
of the ancient Greek dialects; why should the almost completely analogous
situation in the ancient Northwest Semitic script be any different? 

Like I said, I think the real reason for resistance is because we already
have an encoding called "Hebrew" and for political, historical, cultural,
religious, ethnic, or other reasons people do not want to use those
"Hebrew" characters for Phoenician, Aramaic, etc. It's an artifact of
what got encoded first, and the fact that it does not reflect the
historical situation. But I don't believe the solution is simply to start
encoding cultural and linguistic variants.


Respectfully,

Dean A. Snyder
Scholarly Technology Specialist
Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi






From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:02 2003
X-UIDL: 30e0556499fa837173693aa6e820f86a
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:45:43 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aa2aJ-0004T6-0M
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:45:39 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBR0gjl12361;
	Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:42:45 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:42:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wlu.ca (wluw5.wlu.ca [192.54.242.118])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBR0gil12355
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:42:44 -0500
Received: from WLU-MTA by wlu.ca
	with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:42:41 -0500
Message-Id: <sfec8f31.084@wlu.ca>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:42:27 -0500
From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
To: <dean.snyder@jhu.edu>, <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBR0gil12355
X-archive-position: 1007
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: kfeuerherm@wlu.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBR0gjl12361
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Dean,

First point: This approach was essentially extensively discussed as one p=
otential solution to the problems faced by users of Biblical Hebrew as op=
posed to Modern Hebrew and was ruled out. Not much point proposing it aga=
in.(Unless I misunderstood you somehow.)

Second point: whereas I haven't taken a stand on this issue (nor am neces=
sarily likely to) I don't think that Michael's position is dictated by po=
litical issues w.r.t. people who don't want to use 'Hebrew'. I've seen no=
 evidence of that.

K

Karlj=FCrgen G. Feuerherm
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies
Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3C5
(519) 884-1970 x3193
>>> "Dean Snyder" <dean.snyder@jhu.edu> 12/26/03 5:44 PM >>>
Michael Everson wrote at 2:57 PM on Friday, December 26, 2003:


But, actually, I HAVE suggested that it might be a good idea to encode
the ancient Northwest Semitic script, which, though it includes Old
Hebrew, would not include Modern Hebrew.=20

<...>

Like I said, I think the real reason for resistance is because we already
have an encoding called "Hebrew" and for political, historical, cultural,
religious, ethnic, or other reasons people do not want to use those
"Hebrew" characters for Phoenician, Aramaic, etc. It's an artifact of
what got encoded first, and the fact that it does not reflect the
historical situation. But I don't believe the solution is simply to start
encoding cultural and linguistic variants.





From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:11 2003
X-UIDL: 35f6249f67010f07d55d2ca7198115ae
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:40:29 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aa7Bb-0003Tv-KZ
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 05:40:27 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBR5cNl17608;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:38:23 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:38:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net (conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.54])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBR5Zol17570;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:35:51 -0500
Received: from sdn-ap-035dcwashp0276.dialsprint.net ([65.179.105.22])
	by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 1Aa76t-0006NI-00; Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:35:36 -0800
From: "Dean Snyder" <dean.snyder@jhu.edu>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Cc: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:36:01 -0500
Message-Id: <20031227053601.3123@smtp.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <122720030325.3045.4a43@att.net>
References: <122720030325.3045.4a43@att.net>
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail 4.2 us Carbon <http://www.ctmdev.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==_20031227053601.2214-1_=="
X-archive-position: 1011
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: dean.snyder@jhu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

--==_20031227053601.2214-1_==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

jameskass@att.net wrote at 3:25 AM on Saturday, December 27, 2003:

>(smile) If you're referring to "Old Italic", it's in Plane One.

No. I'm referring to Latin.


>Besides, would it be fair to say that many
>paleographers and script taxonomists have been interested in computer 
>encoding all along?

Certainly not, to my knowledge, those working with ancient Semitic scripts.


>But, in either case it is hoped that the needs of script
>taxonomists and paleographers won't be disregarded.

So Unicode is now prepared to provide support, in plain text, for the
needs of paleographers?


>> 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.

Fraktur has precisely the same plain text rendering issues.


>> 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:

This document by Michael Everson is particularly revealing and in the end
damning to his whole attempt at disunification of the Northwest Semitic
script.


><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>

If we compare this list to the taxonomic chart he reproduces on the next
page (see the attachment), we see convenient, but nevertheless glaring,
discrepancies between the two. Not mentioned in his list but appearing in
the chart under Phoenician are Samaritan, Hebrew Square, Arabic, and
Aramaic - including Nabatean, Palmyrene, Mandaic, Syriac, etc. (See the
attachment.)


><quote>
>...most of the scripts are so similar that there doesn't seem to be any
>point to encoding them separately.
><end quote>

Everson's fuller quote here is:

"Phoenician is the catch-all for the largest group of related scripts
including its ancestors, Proto-Sinaitic/Proto-Canaanite. Looking at
tables 5.1, 5.3, and 5.4 (below) most of the scripts are so similar that
there doesn't seem to be any point in trying to encode them separately."

But he conveniently excludes any tables for Aramaic, Hebrew Square, and
Samaritan paleography and also fails to mention the one column out of
sixteen in these tables that IS devoted to Aramaic.

So once again I refer to other tables with broader paleographic attestation

<http://www.jhu.edu/ice/ancientnorthwestsemitic/gesenius.gif>
<http://www.jhu.edu/ice/ancientnorthwestsemitic/gibson1.gif>
<http://www.jhu.edu/ice/ancientnorthwestsemitic/gibson2.gif>

and, based on such tables, suggest, in Everson's words, that "Looking at
[THESE tables] most of the scripts are so similar that there doesn't seem
to be any point in trying to encode them separately."

 
Respectfully,

Dean A. Snyder
Scholarly Technology Specialist
Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi

--==_20031227053601.2214-1_==
Content-Type: image/gif; name="oconnor.gif"; x-mac-type="47494666";
 x-mac-creator="3842494D"
Content-Disposition: attachment
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--==_20031227053601.2214-1_==--





From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:17 2003
X-UIDL: cd937f48d5b8e8f809108240c78ba36f
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:26:58 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaFP4-0007AG-QQ
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:26:55 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRDfol12720;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 08:41:50 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 08:41:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.62])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRDd4l12672;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 08:39:05 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034190381@ni-mail1.dna.utvinternet.net>;
 Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:39:00 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020400bc133ad4cc53@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20031227053601.3123@smtp.earthlink.net>
References: <122720030325.3045.4a43@att.net>
 <20031227053601.3123@smtp.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:38:42 +0000
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>, "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1012
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 00:36 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote:

>This document by Michael Everson is particularly revealing and in the end
>damning to his whole attempt at disunification of the Northwest Semitic
>script.

I am not interested in participating in this kind of discourse. This 
is not "Michael Everson vs the Semitic scholars", Mr Snyder.

Your "Northwest Semitic" is the same as "my" Phoenician in any case; 
so, in fact, you agree with the Roadmap as regards some points.

Lumpers can use Hebrew. Splitters need more granularity. We will, 
eventually, be investigating the levels of granularity that will be 
useful.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:19 2003
X-UIDL: 62e26c3f8438750bab252eb5dd74814e
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:22:17 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaHCi-0001y2-My
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:22:16 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRGKSl27555;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:20:28 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:20:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cardinal.mail.pas.earthlink.net (cardinal.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.226])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRGKCl27053;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:20:28 -0500
Received: from sdn-ap-040dcwashp0497.dialsprint.net ([207.9.249.243])
	by cardinal.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 1AaHA4-0006i0-00; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 08:19:33 -0800
From: "Dean Snyder" <dean.snyder@jhu.edu>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>, "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:20:06 -0500
Message-Id: <20031227162006.11450@smtp.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <p06020400bc133ad4cc53@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <p06020400bc133ad4cc53@[192.168.0.2]>
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail 4.2 us Carbon <http://www.ctmdev.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1013
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: dean.snyder@jhu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael Everson wrote at 1:38 PM on Saturday, December 27, 2003:

>At 00:36 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote:
>
>>This document by Michael Everson is particularly revealing and in the end
>>damning to his whole attempt at disunification of the Northwest Semitic
>>script.
>
>I am not interested in participating in this kind of discourse. This 
>is not "Michael Everson vs the Semitic scholars", Mr Snyder.

I only mentioned your name because the person who posted this reference
quoted it as an authority apropos to this discussion but did not give
your, the author's, name; and yet it is YOUR opinions about
disunification of the ancient Northwest Semitic script which have come
under scrutiny here. Therefore your authorship of that document is
material information in this discussion.

Aside from that, there still remain the substantive questions I raised
about the actual content of your document.


>Your "Northwest Semitic" is the same as "my" Phoenician in any case; 
>so, in fact, you agree with the Roadmap as regards some points.

Not if you exclude Samaritan, Aramaic, and Square Hebrew, which you have.


>Lumpers can use Hebrew. Splitters need more granularity. We will, 
>eventually, be investigating the levels of granularity that will be 
>useful.

But my main objection is that you have ALREADY made up your mind about
Phoenician and Hebrew, categorically and emphatically declaring that
there is "zero chance" that they will be considered glyphic variants of
one another.

--------------------------------

Terminology has become an issue. I think words like "Phoenician" and
"Hebrew" are being used in differing ways.

Phoenician is a language, a group of script variants within a broader
script system used for writing the Phoenician language, and (for some) a
whole script system. (See, for example, the confusion in the O'Connor
taxonomic chart included in your roadmap document, where he places
Phoenician under Phoenician!). Similarly, Hebrew is a language, a group
of script variants used for writing the Hebrew language, and an encoded
script in Unicode. (I know that "Phoenician" and "Hebrew" are used for
writing other languages, in fact that's my whole point - this is a single
script system used for writing different languages, and the distinctions
that exist are primarily linguistic and/or cultural and are not script
related.)

I use Phoenician as the name for a group of script variants in the
broader Northwest Semitic script system used for writing the Phoenician
language; and I use Hebrew for a group of related script variants, both
ancient and modern, used for writing the Hebrew language.  Because Hebrew
has a longer and more varied history than Phoenician, when I want to make
distinctions in the Hebrew group I say Old or Ancient Hebrew versus
Medieval & Modern, or Square, Hebrew.


Respectfully,

Dean A. Snyder
Scholarly Technology Specialist
Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi






From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:23 2003
X-UIDL: 13877105e985f64d06d0c1370af12c63
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:10:24 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaHxE-000342-Bl
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:10:20 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRH3Ul08158;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:03:30 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:03:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRGvil07012;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:57:44 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034201448@ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net>;
 Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:58:12 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020407bc136631f651@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20031227162006.11450@smtp.earthlink.net>
References: <p06020400bc133ad4cc53@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031227162006.11450@smtp.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:57:29 +0000
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>, "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1014
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 11:20 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote:

>But my main objection is that you have ALREADY made up your mind 
>about Phoenician and Hebrew, categorically and emphatically 
>declaring that there is "zero chance" that they will be considered 
>glyphic variants of one another.

I'm sorry you object. I remain convinced, however, that suggestion 
that Phoenician be unified with Hebrew and Phoenician is ridiculous 
in the extreme, and I will oppose it absolutely. Likewise, it is 
clear that Samaritan is also not to be unified with Hebrew. There may 
be some grey area regarding the relation of one variety or another of 
Aramaic to Phoenician, and to Hebrew and other descendants of 
Aramaic. That is what gave rise to this and related threads.

If you don't like this, that's fine. You can raise your objections 
when I eventually have the time and resources to push the Phoenician 
or Samaritan proposal forward. (Realistically, we can't expect that 
any one else will be doing so.) I'm not going to do that now, nor am 
I going to engage in further academic debate with you. You've put far 
more weight on the niggly details in N2311, which is an informative 
document written two years ago in order to help make sense out of 
chaos. O'Connor's chart there is one of many charts; its being there 
is also informative.

In the meantime, the Roadmap will stay as it is, because these issues 
remain open. As I see it, it is a certainty that Phoenician and 
Samaritan will be encoded, for good reasons I shall not go into here. 
And in due course, it will be possible to discuss what remains.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:25 2003
X-UIDL: 61a4d11e6c52ba9b999ec18a19f5ed19
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:38:50 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaJKr-0005Ub-Jx
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:38:49 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRIb5l13301;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:37:05 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:37:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury.ccil.org (mercury.ccil.org [192.190.237.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRIb4l13295;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:37:04 -0500
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1AaJJ5-0001jX-00; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:36:59 -0500
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:36:59 -0500
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org, Unicode List <unicode@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Message-ID: <20031227183659.GD24857@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <p06020400bc133ad4cc53@[192.168.0.2]> <20031227162006.11450@smtp.earthlink.net> <p06020407bc136631f651@[192.168.0.2]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <p06020407bc136631f651@[192.168.0.2]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1015
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael Everson scripsit:

> I remain convinced, however, that suggestion 
> that Phoenician be unified with Hebrew and Phoenician is ridiculous 
> in the extreme, and I will oppose it absolutely. Likewise, it is 
> clear that Samaritan is also not to be unified with Hebrew.  

There's clearly a slip here: the second occurrence of "Phoenician" must
mean something else, and I can't figure out what.  However, it is not
so clear to me that Phoenician and palaeo-Hebrew (and a fortiori
Samaritan) should not be unified.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>     http://www.reutershealth.com
"But no living man am I!  You look upon a woman.  Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter.
You stand between me and my lord and kin.  Begone, if you be not deathless.
For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him."




From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:26 2003
X-UIDL: 91592c030c07707bd60f5b29a6007407
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:00:10 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaJfR-000697-4A
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:00:05 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRIrEl13388;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:53:14 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:53:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRIm4l13351;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:48:25 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034857850@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net>;
 Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:47:19 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020410bc1382d3ac3c@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20031227183659.GD24857@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <p06020400bc133ad4cc53@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031227162006.11450@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p06020407bc136631f651@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031227183659.GD24857@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:45:15 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org, Unicode List <unicode@unicode.org>
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1016
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 13:36 -0500 2003-12-27, John Cowan wrote:
>Michael Everson scripsit:
>
>>I remain convinced, however, that suggestion that Phoenician be 
>>unified with Hebrew and Phoenician is ridiculous in the extreme, 
>>and I will oppose it absolutely. Likewise, it is clear that 
>>Samaritan is also not to be unified with Hebrew.
>
>There's clearly a slip here: the second occurrence of "Phoenician" must
>mean something else, and I can't figure out what.  However, it is not
>so clear to me that Phoenician and palaeo-Hebrew (and a fortiori
>Samaritan) should not be unified.

Sorry.

I remain convinced, however, that suggestion that Phoenician be 
unified with Hebrew is ridiculous in the extreme, and I will oppose 
it absolutely. Likewise, it is clear that Samaritan is also not to be 
unified with Hebrew.

Currently we do think that Phoenican and Palaeo-Hebrew should be 
unified. Samaritan on the other hand is a later development of that 
line, which had to good fortune of taking on typographic 
regularization and development; it has interesting and unique 
features with regard to vowel representation, and a modern community 
of users; it is best disunified from Phoenician.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:28 2003
X-UIDL: 67265b3f2077970691d86c1fd333529b
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:17:46 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaKsa-00081G-EN
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:17:44 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRKDYl14529;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:13:34 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:13:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury.ccil.org (mercury.ccil.org [192.190.237.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRKDXl14522
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:13:34 -0500
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1AaKoJ-0004M4-00; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:13:19 -0500
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:13:19 -0500
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Message-ID: <20031227201319.GI24857@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <p06020400bc133ad4cc53@[192.168.0.2]> <20031227162006.11450@smtp.earthlink.net> <p06020407bc136631f651@[192.168.0.2]> <20031227183659.GD24857@mercury.ccil.org> <p06020410bc1382d3ac3c@[192.168.0.2]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <p06020410bc1382d3ac3c@[192.168.0.2]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1017
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael Everson scripsit:

> Currently we do think that Phoenican and Palaeo-Hebrew should be 
> unified.

Excellent.

> Samaritan on the other hand is a later development of that 
> line, which had to good fortune of taking on typographic 
> regularization and development; it has interesting and unique 
> features with regard to vowel representation, and a modern community 
> of users; it is best disunified from Phoenician.

All of these points apply with equal force to the development of 
the generalized Latin script from the original Latin alphabet; the
"interesting and unique features" being of course, in the case of Latin, the
use of diacritics on vowel letters rather than the use of diacritics in
place of, or supplementing, vowel letters.  Yet we explicitly unify
the two, drawing the line just upstream of the Latin alphabet.

-- 
John Cowan      jcowan@reutershealth.com        http://www.reutershealth.com
        "Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U."  --K.X.U.




From - Sat Dec 27 12:53:28 2003
X-UIDL: 495ba4faf42ded3d75bd657994d767a6
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:39:39 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaLDm-0008Um-Ls
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:39:38 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRKZal14754;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:35:36 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:35:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRKZZl14748
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:35:35 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034861764@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:35:33 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p0602041cbc1399e313e4@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20031227201319.GI24857@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <p06020400bc133ad4cc53@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031227162006.11450@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p06020407bc136631f651@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031227183659.GD24857@mercury.ccil.org>
 <p06020410bc1382d3ac3c@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031227201319.GI24857@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:35:29 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1018
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 15:13 -0500 2003-12-27, John Cowan wrote:
>Michael Everson scripsit:
>
>  > Currently we do think that Phoenican and Palaeo-Hebrew should be unified.
>
>Excellent.

This *isn't* news.

>All of these points apply with equal force to the development of the 
>generalized Latin script from the original Latin alphabet; the 
>"interesting and unique features" being of course, in the case of 
>Latin, the use of diacritics on vowel letters rather than the use of 
>diacritics in place of, or supplementing, vowel letters.  Yet we 
>explicitly unify the two, drawing the line just upstream of the 
>Latin alphabet.

I think that time depth and legibility mitigate against this 
somewhat.  Why not wait until there is a proposal on the table before 
you make up your mind?
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sat Dec 27 14:21:16 2003
X-UIDL: 3398af6fcafcb689d342843c3afa60cb
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:16:10 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaMjA-0002SY-TX
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:16:08 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMDhl15887;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:13:43 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:13:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMDgl15881
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:13:42 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 5977D412E15; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:13:25 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEE0414.6020302@qaya.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:13:40 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Karljurgen Feuerherm <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
Cc: dean.snyder@jhu.edu, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <sfec8f31.084@wlu.ca>
In-Reply-To: <sfec8f31.084@wlu.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1019
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 26/12/2003 16:42, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:

>Dean,
>
>First point: This approach was essentially extensively discussed as one potential solution to the problems faced by users of Biblical Hebrew as opposed to Modern Hebrew and was ruled out. Not much point proposing it again.(Unless I misunderstood you somehow.)
>
>...
>
>Michael Everson wrote at 2:57 PM on Friday, December 26, 2003:
>
>
>But, actually, I HAVE suggested that it might be a good idea to encode
>the ancient Northwest Semitic script, which, though it includes Old
>Hebrew, would not include Modern Hebrew. 
>
>...
>  
>
As I see it, there are two separate issues.

The earlier proposal was to encode classical and biblical Hebrew 
separately from modern Hebrew. That proposal was strongly rejected by 
users of biblical Hebrew both among western scholars and among the 
(overlapping) Jewish community.

Dean's proposal seems to be a different one, to encode a script for 
Phoenician and palaeo-Hebrew separately from the already encoded Hebrew 
script. This new script would be used only for epigraphic materials and 
perhaps for occasional MSS in paleo-Hebrew, and the tetragrammaton in 
paleo-Hebrew.

Personally, I see no compelling reason to treat Phoenician as a separate 
script, rather than a font variant, but would not find this idea highly 
objectionable. There is also the significant issue that the Phoenician 
script does seem to be in modern liturgical use by the small Samaritan 
community, and this community should be consulted before a decision is 
reached. The question would then arise whether the script should be 
called Phoenician or Samaritan. And remember that this script is also in 
modern use on Israeli coins.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sat Dec 27 14:41:16 2003
X-UIDL: 54ebe7bf7e2060771cc4e6077d03ae87
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:40:36 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaN6m-0002xz-Py
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:40:32 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMXol16027;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:33:50 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:33:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMXol16021
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:33:50 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id CAD33408860; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:33:33 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEE08CC.2090003@qaya.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:33:48 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <p06020400bc133ad4cc53@[192.168.0.2]> <20031227162006.11450@smtp.earthlink.net> <p06020407bc136631f651@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020407bc136631f651@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1022
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 27/12/2003 08:57, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 11:20 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote:
>
>> But my main objection is that you have ALREADY made up your mind 
>> about Phoenician and Hebrew, categorically and emphatically declaring 
>> that there is "zero chance" that they will be considered glyphic 
>> variants of one another.
>
>
> I'm sorry you object. I remain convinced, however, that suggestion 
> that Phoenician be unified with Hebrew and Phoenician is ridiculous in 
> the extreme, and I will oppose it absolutely. ...


You have one vote on this. Other scholars have their votes. The balance 
of contributions I have read so far suggest that there is a good chance 
that you will be outvoted.

> ...
>
> If you don't like this, that's fine. You can raise your objections 
> when I eventually have the time and resources to push the Phoenician 
> or Samaritan proposal forward. (Realistically, we can't expect that 
> any one else will be doing so.) ...


Indeed. You seem to be the only person who thinks this is definitely a 
sensible proposal. Those who oppose it or who are uncertain are not 
going to propose it.

> ...
> In the meantime, the Roadmap will stay as it is, because these issues 
> remain open. As I see it, it is a certainty that Phoenician and 
> Samaritan will be encoded, for good reasons I shall not go into here. 
> And in due course, it will be possible to discuss what remains.


You contradict yourself. Are the issues open, or is there one issue 
which is already decided, unilaterally by yourself?

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sat Dec 27 15:01:15 2003
X-UIDL: 327a88f4a50637f25d595efbc473188a
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:53:34 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaNJK-0003F0-R9
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:53:30 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMo8l16154;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:50:14 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:50:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBRMnvl16148
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:50:08 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034214304@ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:50:06 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020400bc13bc7780ac@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FEE0414.6020302@qaya.org>
References: <sfec8f31.084@wlu.ca> <3FEE0414.6020302@qaya.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:49:20 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1023
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 14:13 -0800 2003-12-27, Peter Kirk wrote:

>Personally, I see no compelling reason to treat Phoenician as a 
>separate script, rather than a font variant, but would not find this 
>idea highly objectionable.

Good. Don't object, then. :-)

>There is also the significant issue that the Phoenician script does 
>seem to be in modern liturgical use by the small Samaritan 
>community, and this community should be consulted before a decision 
>is reached.

We are.

>The question would then arise whether the script should be called 
>Phoenician or Samaritan.

The Samaritan script derives from the Phoenician, but is sufficiently 
different that it should be encoded separately.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sun Dec 28 13:51:42 2003
X-UIDL: b867db23dd37b6ffe113bdf85502f270
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:14:54 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaQSC-0007mB-5X
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:14:52 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBS2D4l22407;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:13:04 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:13:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from rick@localhost)
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hBS2D3I22381
	for hebrew@unicode.org; Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:13:03 -0500
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:13:03 -0500
From: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
Message-Id: <200312280213.hBS2D3I22381@unicode.org>
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
X-archive-position: 1029
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: rick@unicode.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Just FYI, the only people who have "votes", when it comes eventually to
real votes, are full members of UTC and members of WG2. Everyone else
is part of the big, amorphous, group of "advisors", and their influence stops
before the point of voting.

And lest anyone think that Michael Everson is a lone crier, I do side with
him on some things, particularly that Phoenician just isn't the same script
as modern square Hebrew. I don't envision that particular unification as
being useful to anyone, rather it would be inadvisable.

	Rick

Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 27/12/2003 08:57, Michael Everson wrote:
> 
>> At 11:20 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote:
>>
>>> But my main objection is that you have ALREADY made up your mind 
>>> about Phoenician and Hebrew, categorically and emphatically declaring 
>>> that there is "zero chance" that they will be considered glyphic 
>>> variants of one another.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry you object. I remain convinced, however, that suggestion 
>> that Phoenician be unified with Hebrew and Phoenician is ridiculous in 
>> the extreme, and I will oppose it absolutely. ...
> 
> 
> 
> You have one vote on this. Other scholars have their votes. The balance 
> of contributions I have read so far suggest that there is a good chance 
> that you will be outvoted.
> 






From - Sun Dec 28 14:51:21 2003
X-UIDL: a60a86c05d2f6113f794aaf2f2a81c3d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:41:37 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AajbM-0001q3-5H
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:41:36 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBSMco825952;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:38:50 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:38:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBSMcn825946;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:38:49 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 219F4412E66; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:38:32 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEF5B77.9040006@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:38:47 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rick McGowan <rick@unicode.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <200312280213.hBS2D3I22381@unicode.org>
In-Reply-To: <200312280213.hBS2D3I22381@unicode.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1031
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 27/12/2003 18:13, Rick McGowan wrote:

>Just FYI, the only people who have "votes", when it comes eventually to
>real votes, are full members of UTC and members of WG2. Everyone else
>is part of the big, amorphous, group of "advisors", and their influence stops
>before the point of voting.
>
>And lest anyone think that Michael Everson is a lone crier, I do side with
>him on some things, particularly that Phoenician just isn't the same script
>as modern square Hebrew. I don't envision that particular unification as
>being useful to anyone, rather it would be inadvisable.
>
>	Rick
>
>  
>
Rick, thanks for the clarification.

Are you personally an expert on these scripts? If you are, you are 
entitled to your own expert opinion. If you are not, I hope you will be 
prepared to revise your opinion about unification being not useful to 
anyone and inadvisable if (and I accept that this has not yet been 
established) the relevant scholarly community (with the exception of Mr 
Everson who is not a Semiticist) tells you that this unification is 
useful to them and advises you to proceed.

I trust that those who do have votes will likewise follow the advice on 
usefulness of the community of scholars in this field and not just of 
one person.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sun Dec 28 15:41:21 2003
X-UIDL: 50a9ec22a5b4a9be8581870da910933d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:39:14 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AakV4-0003BO-RY
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:39:10 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBSNad829199;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:36:39 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:36:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBSNad829193
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:36:39 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034918906@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:36:37 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:36:34 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBSNad829193
X-archive-position: 1033
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBSNad829199
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 14:30 -0800 2003-12-28, Peter Kirk wrote:

>Michael, I dropped this matter, went away for=20
>four days and had lots of mince pies and other=20
>food and drink. I came back expecting that the=20
>matter would have died.

Well, the Aramaic question seems to have been=20
quelled because at the very least it's not a BMP=20
thing, which implied to some people that it was a=20
modern or Biblical thing.

>Instead I found well over a hundred messages on=20
>these two lists on this matter,

Alas so many of them were duplicates. I hope we=20
keep the discussion to the Hebrew list.

>[...] the great majority (apart from yours)=20
>opposing your insistence on encoding separately=20
>a large number of additional Semitic scripts. So=20
>it is not just me, there are several others out=20
>there taking my side, and I don't see anyone=20
>really supporting you.

I have my supporters. ;-)

>No, the situation I describe is not isomorphic.=20
>Phoenician script differs from unpointed Hebrew=20
>script ***ONLY*** in the glyph shapes.

I contend that the radical difference between=20
those glyph shapes makes Phoenician something=20
very different from that which the Square Hebrew=20
which Israelis and Semiticists read. Analogous to=20
the Georgian disunification. Script unification=20
where "simple font change" is required is=20
generally unsatisfactory. It could be done for=20
Nuskhuri/Mkhedruli, or for Glagolitic/Cyrillic.=20
And where "simple font change" renders the text=20
unintelligible, it really says Do Not Unify, even=20
where the character repertoire is identical.

>There is much more to distinguish Latin script,=20
>as regularly printed in Irish newspapers, from=20
>the Suetterlin example I sent you. For=20
>Suetterlin not only has mostly quite different=20
>glyph shapes, it also has complex joining=20
>behaviour probably with contextual forms. So=20
>technically there is a much stronger case for=20
>calling Suetterlin a separate script than for=20
>doing the same for Phoenician.

Come on. S=FCtterlin isn't found set in type=20
(except possibly in some primers for teaching the=20
thing). It's found handwritten in diaries and=20
ledgers by people's great grandfathers.

>I take Mark's point that Suetterlin is easier to=20
>read than Samaritan, but that is to a large=20
>extent because of the partial resemblance=20
>between Suetterlin and common styles of American=20
>handwriting, which Mark has learned to read.=20
>Perhaps I should find an example of Cyrillic=20
>handwriting and ask list members familiar with=20
>Cyrillic script only from the reference glyphs=20
>to match it with Unicode code points. This is=20
>something which needs to be learned, just as=20
>does any completely different set of glyphs,=20
>just as do Phoenician and Samaritan glyphs.

No. Russian and Serbian children learn how to=20
write cursive Cyrillic and to read printed roman=20
and italic Cyrillic. German children used to=20
learn how to write cursive S=FCtterlin and to read=20
printed Fraktur. This is a VERY DIFFERENT thing=20
from what you have in the Hebrew world.=20
Phoenician is not a glyph variant of Hebrew.=20
Hebrew, indeed, is not a glyph variant of=20
Phoenician. Hebrew is the daughter of Phoenician.=20
That is significant. If your brand of Semiticist=20
doesn't want to read texts in Phoenician, or=20
rather, doesn't want to encode them in=20
Phoenician, but rather in Hebrew, you are=20
perfectly welcome to do so. You can do so today.=20
If we encode Phoenician, you can ignore it=20
forever. Lots of runologists prefer to read Runes=20
in transliteration, and wondered why we would=20
bother to encode the Runes.

>I can see that such glyph shape differences=20
>might be taken as a criterion for distinguishing=20
>a different script. But if that criterion is=20
>applied consistently we end up with several new=20
>scripts for Latin and Greek handwritten styles.

I don't believe that this is true. I think you=20
are overstating the case. Scholars of writing do=20
not call all of those variants different=20
alphabets or different scripts. But in the world=20
of early West Semitics, that's exactly what=20
happens.

>And, by the way, in case you say that Unicode=20
>doesn't encode handwriting, remember that all=20
>known examples of Phoenician script are=20
>handwritten.

Or carved in stone. But aha! there have been=20
fonts made for Phoenician, for instance by the=20
Imprimerie Nationale.

>>Well, colleagues, there is going to be a=20
>>proposal to encode Samaritan as distinct from=20
>>Hebrew and Phoenician and Greek and Latin and=20
>>Ethiopic and Ugaritic. There is also going to=20
>>be a proposal to encode Phoenician as distinct=20
>>from Hebrew and Samaritan and Greek and Latin=20
>>and Ethiopic and Ugaritic. Hashing this over=20
>>and over and over again before those proposals=20
>>appear is not a particularly good use of time,=20
>>is it?
>>
>You, Michael, are welcome to propose Phoenician=20
>as a separate script. And I have the right to=20
>propose Suetterlin as a separate script.

Go right ahead, but Pitman's Shorthand has a=20
better chance though. (Exercise for the student:=20
explain why. Doing so will assist you in learning=20
about the criteria for encoding things in the=20
Universal Character Set.)

>But I realise that my hypothetical proposal is=20
>unlikely to succeed because it is technically=20
>doubtful, unnecessary, and not required by a=20
>community of users. So I will not waste my time=20
>or anyone else's by proposing it. Michael, I=20
>suggest that you come to the same conclusion=20
>about Phoenician.

Semiticists are not the only potential users of=20
Phoenician. Writing Phoenician is not the only=20
use for writing the Phoenician language. There=20
are many "history of our alphabet" texts out=20
there which can't be represented in plain text=20
because a number of those important nodes aren't=20
encoded. And Hebrew is not the mother of Armenian=20
or Georgian or Greek or Old Italic, etc.

>After all, preparing a proposal which no one=20
>wants or needs and which is likely to be shot=20
>down is far more of a waste of time than the=20
>current discussions.

It's OK with me if YOU don't want or need=20
Phoenician. Others do. It's OK with me if the=20
International Union of Semiticists (who are all=20
in *unanimous* agreement that Hebrew *is*=20
Phoenician) doesn't want or need Phoenician.=20
Other people do, and in plain text, not in font=20
markup.

>>That you cannot seem to imagine that there are=20
>>*other* clients of Phoenician and other scripts=20
>>than *your* particular brand of semiticist is=20
>>peculiar to me. Phoenician had many children,=20
>>ONE of which is Hebrew. Another is Samaritan.=20
>>Another is Arabic. Another is Syriac. Another=20
>>is Mandaic. Another is Greek. Another is Old=20
>>Italic. Another is Latin.
>>
>OK, you can name scripts, but can you name other brands of Semiticist?

I guess not all Semiticists worked for the=20
Christian organization SIL, if that is what you=20
are asking. I don't think that you and Elaine=20
speak for every Semiticist in the world. Nor do I=20
think that Jony and the Israeli standards body=20
do. And it begs the question. If Hellenicists or=20
other historians of the alphabet want to=20
distinguish Phoenician as an alphabet and script=20
unique from Hebrew, that is enough for me.

>Who are your "*other* clients? Name names, please.

Citations from relevant works making the=20
distinction will be forthcoming in due course.

>If you come up with any community of scholars=20
>etc who actually wants to use a separately=20
>encoded Phoenician script, I will withdraw my=20
>objections.

The eventual proposal will have more than the=20
necessary padding of "students of writing and the=20
alphabet" examples to endeavour to address this=20
concern. I appreciate that the concern is valid,=20
as far as it goes.

>(Note that it is the existence of the Samaritan=20
>community which allows me to provisionally=20
>accept the Samaritan script, if that community=20
>wants it to be encoded; if it is encoded=20
>separately, it would make sense to use this=20
>script also for Phoenician.)

The Freemasons use Samaritan as well,=20
interstingly. In my view, it would not make sense=20
to use Samaritan for Phoenician because the=20
latter is the mother script.

>>People who study the history of their=20
>>alphabets, and they do, and they teach this=20
>>lore to their children in books and on the=20
>>Internet and all that. And the mother of those=20
>>scripts is Phoenician. She is *not* Hebrew.=20
>>Whether a semiticist ever encodes a Phoenician=20
>>sentence in Phoenician is up to that=20
>>semiticist. But there's no way you can expect=20
>>everyone else to treat it as a glyph variant of=20
>>Hebrew just because you do.
>
>People who study the history of alphabets need=20
>to distinguish many more glyph sets than the few=20
>you have proposed for the roadmap.

No, a certain kind of epigrapher does. Those=20
people need to worry about all the gradations=20
from one node (as I call them) to the next. The=20
basic book on the History of the Greek Alphabet=20
or the History of the Arabic script does not. And=20
in all of that kind of literature, a basic=20
node-based taxonomy is used, with distinctions=20
made between Phoenician and Hebrew and Nabataean=20
and Arabic and Greek, which ought not to be made=20
by lumping the first three into font variants of=20
Hebrew.

>They need to distinguish an indefinite number of=20
>different glyph shapes. This can be done with=20
>any degree of precision only by encoding=20
>individual images for glyph shapes, and rather=20
>more approximately by using different fonts.

That's a certain kind of palaeography which goes=20
beyond the kinds of distinctions which are=20
proposed, and which are considered, by some of=20
us, to be basic in terms of the Universal=20
Character Set.

>And what about people who study the history of=20
>the Latin alphabet as used, for example, in the=20
>different stages of the English language?

Actually, though there are some hard-to-read=20
chancellery scripts in later Middle and early=20
Modern English, by and large, the alphabet is=20
pretty legible. The letterforms in the Beowulf=20
manuscript are not difficult for a=20
Fraktur-reading German, a Gaelic-reading=20
Irishman, or an English-reading Englishman to=20
read. Indeed I was reading the facsimile of the=20
Beowulf manuscript when I was 14 years old.=20
You're overstating the difficulty, in my view.

>Are you going to allow them to encode each=20
>script variant they study individually?

It's a different case. For heaven's sake, Peter,=20
there are CONTEMPORARY users of=20
Hebrew/Aramaic/Palaeo-Hebrew/Samaritan who=20
recognize the difference between these scripts=20
explicitly. Indeed "purity" can be at stake=20
depending on what "script" is used in terms of=20
the (hand)written Talmud. This is not all just=20
"font variants". It wasn't in antiquity, and it=20
isn't today, even if all of your particular brand=20
of Semiticist wants to use Hebrew and Hebrew only.

>Or are you going to expect them to treat their=20
>scripts as glyph variants of Latin "just because=20
>you do"?

You need to relax. The encoding of Phoenician=20
threatens your ability to use Hebrew for all your=20
purposes Not A Whit.
--=20
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sun Dec 28 16:31:22 2003
X-UIDL: 55cabad8a4e209a13e51e84e645c2bc4
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:23:43 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AalC1-0004B1-2L
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:23:33 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0K8829468;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:20:13 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:20:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury.ccil.org (mercury.ccil.org [192.190.237.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0Jh829462
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:19:53 -0500
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1Aal7X-0005Om-00; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:18:55 -0500
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:18:55 -0500
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Message-ID: <20031229001855.GF19753@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1034
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael Everson scripsit:

> Script unification 
> where "simple font change" is required is 
> generally unsatisfactory. It could be done for 
> Nuskhuri/Mkhedruli, or for Glagolitic/Cyrillic. 

The Georgian case was disunified because the distinction of
script had in effect become a distinction of cased vs. caseless.

> And where "simple font change" renders the text 
> unintelligible, it really says Do Not Unify, even 
> where the character repertoire is identical.

Well, Masons use Samaritan as a cipher for Hebrew, but then
they also use Pigpen as a cipher for Latin, and for exactly
the same reasons.  Yet nobody proposes to encode Pigpen,
despite its unquestionable unintelligibility and use in
plain-text documents.

> If we encode Phoenician, you can ignore it 
> forever. Lots of runologists prefer to read Runes 
> in transliteration, and wondered why we would 
> bother to encode the Runes.

A strong argument, showing that scholarly users are not
the only relevant kinds of users for (some) archaic scripts.

> I don't believe that this is true. I think you 
> are overstating the case. Scholars of writing do 
> not call all of those variants different 
> alphabets or different scripts. But in the world 
> of early West Semitics, that's exactly what 
> happens.

Not necessarily conclusive: as we found out in the hieroglyphics
work, the use of the term "glyph" does not necessarily signal an
application of the Unicode character/glyph distinction.

> Semiticists are not the only potential users of 
> Phoenician. Writing Phoenician is not the only 
> use for writing the Phoenician language. There 
> are many "history of our alphabet" texts out 
> there which can't be represented in plain text 
> because a number of those important nodes aren't 
> encoded. 

All such texts that I've ever seen use comparative
tables (not plain text) or illustrations (not plain
text).

> The Freemasons use Samaritan as well, 
> interstingly. In my view, it would not make sense 
> to use Samaritan for Phoenician because the 
> latter is the mother script.

Is the objection to *calling* it Samaritan, or using Samaritan
glyphs as the representative glyphs, or both?

> [T]here are CONTEMPORARY users of 
> Hebrew/Aramaic/Palaeo-Hebrew/Samaritan who 
> recognize the difference between these scripts 
> explicitly. 

Well, okay.  I believe all the actual contrasts can be
covered by Hebrew, Syriac, and a third script, to be called
Phoenician, Palaeo-Hebrew, or Samaritan as seems suitable.

As for the Talmud, it's the very prototype of fancy text,
indeed hypertext.

> You need to relax. The encoding of Phoenician 
> threatens your ability to use Hebrew for all your 
> purposes Not A Whit.

Very true.

-- 
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com  jcowan@reutershealth.com
"'My young friend, if you do not now, immediately and instantly, pull
as hard as ever you can, it is my opinion that your acquaintance in the
large-pattern leather ulster' (and by this he meant the Crocodile) 'will
jerk you into yonder limpid stream before you can say Jack Robinson.'"
        --the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake




From - Sun Dec 28 16:41:22 2003
X-UIDL: decdb3048f348624b6db1620276e3680
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:35:37 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AalNc-0004aW-1Y
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:35:32 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0XF829501;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:33:15 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:33:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0XE829495
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:33:15 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 87BF0407310; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:32:55 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:33:13 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1036
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBT0XF829501
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 15:36, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 14:30 -0800 2003-12-28, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Instead I found well over a hundred messages on these two lists on=20
>> this matter,
>
>
> Alas so many of them were duplicates. I hope we keep the discussion to=20
> the Hebrew list.


Agreed on both points here!

>
> ... And where "simple font change" renders the text unintelligible, it=20
> really says Do Not Unify, even where the character repertoire is=20
> identical.
>
This is a reasonable criterion, which needs to be applied consistently.

> ...
> Come on. S=FCtterlin isn't found set in type (except possibly in some=20
> primers for teaching the thing). It's found handwritten in diaries and=20
> ledgers by people's great grandfathers.
>
And Phoenician isn't found set in type, but handwritten on potsherds=20
(ostraca) or hand carved on stone, by people's many times great=20
grandfathers (and possibly ...mothers). But I do take the point that=20
S=FCtterlin readers and writers also read standard Latin script and=20
recognise these two scripts as variants of one another.

> ...
>
>> And, by the way, in case you say that Unicode doesn't encode=20
>> handwriting, remember that all known examples of Phoenician script=20
>> are handwritten.
>
>
> Or carved in stone. But aha! there have been fonts made for=20
> Phoenician, for instance by the Imprimerie Nationale.
>
And I am sure that fonts have been made for S=FCtterlin, as one seems to=20
have been used in preparing=20
http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/images/suetterlin.jpg.

> ...
> Semiticists are not the only potential users of Phoenician. Writing=20
> Phoenician is not the only use for writing the Phoenician language.=20
> There are many "history of our alphabet" texts out there which can't=20
> be represented in plain text because a number of those important nodes=20
> aren't encoded. ...


Well, in most of these texts the various alphabets are represented in=20
figures i.e. pure graphics or in tables which also cannot be represented=20
in plain text. These same "history of our alphabet" texts also often=20
include variant forms of Latin script e.g. italic, black letter, cursive=20
which cannot be represented in plain text either - certainly without=20
trespassing on that mathematical block.

> ...
> It's OK with me if YOU don't want or need Phoenician. Others do. It's=20
> OK with me if the International Union of Semiticists (who are all in=20
> *unanimous* agreement that Hebrew *is* Phoenician) doesn't want or=20
> need Phoenician. Other people do, and in plain text, not in font markup.
>
Again, if there really are such people, find them and get them to put=20
their names on a proposal, and I won't object to that proposal. But I=20
will object to a proposal whose only supporter is yourself and people=20
who know little about this family of scripts, and whose justification is=20
just that it is on the roadmap.

>>> That you cannot seem to imagine that there are *other* clients of=20
>>> Phoenician and other scripts than *your* particular brand of=20
>>> semiticist is peculiar to me. Phoenician had many children, ONE of=20
>>> which is Hebrew. Another is Samaritan. Another is Arabic. Another is=20
>>> Syriac. Another is Mandaic. Another is Greek. Another is Old Italic.=20
>>> Another is Latin.
>>>
>> OK, you can name scripts, but can you name other brands of Semiticist?
>
>
> I guess not all Semiticists worked for the Christian organization SIL,=20
> if that is what you are asking. I don't think that you and Elaine=20
> speak for every Semiticist in the world. Nor do I think that Jony and=20
> the Israeli standards body do. ...

I make no such claim, and I don't think Elaine or Jony do either. We are=20
just looking for any group of scholars, or non-scholars, even=20
Indo-Europeanists if that is relevant, who do want a separate script.

> ... And it begs the question. If Hellenicists or other historians of=20
> the alphabet want to distinguish Phoenician as an alphabet and script=20
> unique from Hebrew, that is enough for me.
>
And if there is no one who does want to distinguish it, apart from=20
yourself, is that enough for you?

>> Who are your "*other* clients? Name names, please.
>
>
> Citations from relevant works making the distinction will be=20
> forthcoming in due course.
>
I await details. As we are talking about plain text, Phoenician etc=20
script used in figures and tables doesn't count.

>> If you come up with any community of scholars etc who actually wants=20
>> to use a separately encoded Phoenician script, I will withdraw my=20
>> objections.
>
>
> The eventual proposal will have more than the necessary padding of=20
> "students of writing and the alphabet" examples to endeavour to=20
> address this concern. I appreciate that the concern is valid, as far=20
> as it goes.
>
Thank you.

>> (Note that it is the existence of the Samaritan community which=20
>> allows me to provisionally accept the Samaritan script, if that=20
>> community wants it to be encoded; if it is encoded separately, it=20
>> would make sense to use this script also for Phoenician.)
>
>
> The Freemasons use Samaritan as well, interstingly. ...

OK, but only as a cipher. On 10th November 2003 you replied to me on the=20
main Unicode list:

>> And then what about the use by Freemasons of the Samaritan script?
>
>
> Irrelevant. The Samaritan script is roadmapped already because of its=20
> real use.=20


> ... In my view, it would not make sense to use Samaritan for=20
> Phoenician because the latter is the mother script.
>
Well, this is an interesting concept: does one script become two simply=20
because of a time gap? Suppose we find, in a quite different context and=20
part of the world, an ancient script being used now by the very small  A=20
community which is essentially the same script (give or take a few=20
serif-like embellishments) as one used by the larger B community several=20
millennia ago. Do we have to encode separate A and B scripts simply=20
because one is the mother of the other? Or is it simply a matter of=20
deciding whether to call the script A or B? That might be contentious,=20
but hardly justifies separating the scripts.

I note from http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm that the modern=20
Samaritan community is happy to say that "The Samaritan script is the=20
Palaeo-Hebrew script." It is unclear whether they would accept also the=20
name Phoenician.

> ... The basic book on the History of the Greek Alphabet or the History=20
> of the Arabic script does not. And in all of that kind of literature,=20
> a basic node-based taxonomy is used, with distinctions made between=20
> Phoenician and Hebrew and Nabataean and Arabic and Greek, which ought=20
> not to be made by lumping the first three into font variants of Hebrew.
>
OK, but we are still talking about differences made in images and=20
tables, not in plain text. And the distinctions you are proposing are=20
anyway adequate only for books on the *Pre-*History of the Greek=20
Alphabet or the *Pre-*History of the Arabic script, for Unicode plain=20
text doesn't allow for variants within the history of these, except for=20
the basic majuscule/uncial distinction in Greek (and of course the=20
infamous koppa!)

> ... For heaven's sake, Peter, there are CONTEMPORARY users of=20
> Hebrew/Aramaic/Palaeo-Hebrew/Samaritan who recognize the difference=20
> between these scripts explicitly. Indeed "purity" can be at stake=20
> depending on what "script" is used in terms of the (hand)written=20
> Talmud. ...

Can you explain this one, please? Also its relevance? Presumably in=20
Unicode terms this is a matter of selecting an appropriate font. I have=20
never heard any suggestion of using anything but Hebrew/Aramaic square=20
script (one script, not two!) for the Talmud. Identical glyphs are used=20
for the Hebrew and Aramaic portions of the Talmud, surely, just as they=20
certainly are for the respective parts of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible,=20
which contains Aramaic portions).

> ... You need to relax. The encoding of Phoenician threatens your=20
> ability to use Hebrew for all your purposes Not A Whit.


Michael, this is not true actually. See the text extract on=20
http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm. It may seriously make my life=20
significantly easier if this text (the Samaritan Torah/Pentateuch), in=20
the Hebrew language, is encoded as Hebrew rather than as Samaritan or=20
Phoenician script. I am prepared to give way if there are other users,=20
including the modern Samaritans, who want it differently. But I have yet=20
to hear from any real users of these scripts who are calling for=20
separate encoding of plain text.

--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sun Dec 28 16:41:23 2003
X-UIDL: d1c40f6d7ed5242baea84e84e74bdf54
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:37:12 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AalPD-0004dI-I4
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:37:11 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBSNYE829183;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:34:14 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:34:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBSNYD829177;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:34:14 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 7EDFC40732B; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:33:55 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:34:12 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>
Cc: unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1032
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 13:16, Jim Allan wrote:

> ...
> For an example of what might be needed, see Rochelle I. S. Altman's 
> discussion "Some Aspects of Older Writing Systems: With Focus on the 
> DSS" at 
> http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/Altman99.shtml :
>
> Altman indicates how differences in ligaturing, height, spacing and 
> glyph variation are used in the unpointed  "Phoenician/Hebraic Writing 
> Systems" to indicate emphasis, pause, stress and even the difference 
> between shin and sin.
>
> Encoding these texts with reasonable fullness would require a 
> "stressed variant" variation selector, vowel phone variation 
> selectors, a sin/shin variation selector as well as ZWJ and variant 
> spaces already encoded.
>
> Jim Allan
>
Thank you, Jim, for this interesting reference, which I am copying to 
the Hebrew list.

I note that the author refers inconsistently, even within the same 
paragraph, to "the Phoenician/Hebraic writing systems" and "the 
Phoenician/Hebraic writing system". When he uses more careful 
terminology, he writes: "one symbol-set system, 
<http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/Altman99.shtml#ftnt2> 
but two different script systems: Paleo-Hebraic and Square Aramaic" 
(i.e. in Unicode terms, Phoenician and Hebrew). See also footnote 33 
which explains the terminology further and makes analogies with Latin 
and Greek.

But I think that this document should also be taken with a big pinch of 
salt. The author assert that "In trilinear limit systems, the symbols 
move up and down according to the stress rhythms of the languages. // 
Durational notation, that is, the length of time a sound should be held, 
is recorded by the amount of movement from side-to-side, that is, 
expansions and contractions of the space between graphic forms." But 
this is simply untrue as a generalisation across many script systems, 
even if it is true of some examples of some scripts. There is of course 
an obvious tendency for some writers of any language to write important 
words, those stressed when spoken, with larger or more carefully shaped 
and spaced glyphs, and to write secondary material, whichis likely to be 
spoken hurriedly, with small and indistinct glyphs. But this kind of 
variation is surely beyond the scope of Unicode.

It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a glyph 
distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in the 
"serech" example 
(http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of what 
is undoubtedly (in Unicode terms) Hebrew script. If this distinction can 
be verified a case can be made for encoding a separate HEBREW LETTER 
SIN, equivalent to shin with sin dot. But it is difficult to verify this 
when three scribes within the same document make the distinction in 
three different ways.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sun Dec 28 16:49:53 2003
X-UIDL: 119f9cb6509c5609776058f3461ce9fd
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:45:32 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AalXG-0004ml-Qn
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:45:30 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0ih829595;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:44:43 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:44:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0ig829589
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:44:42 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034921556@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:44:41 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020411bc1527078738@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20031229001855.GF19753@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031229001855.GF19753@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:41:46 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1038
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 19:18 -0500 2003-12-28, John Cowan wrote:
>Michael Everson scripsit:
>
>>  Script unification
>>  where "simple font change" is required is
>>  generally unsatisfactory. It could be done for
>>  Nuskhuri/Mkhedruli, or for Glagolitic/Cyrillic.
>
>The Georgian case was disunified because the distinction of script 
>had in effect become a distinction of cased vs. caseless.

That was one of the criteria, which of course does not impact on 
Western Semitic.

>  > And where "simple font change" renders the text
>>  unintelligible, it really says Do Not Unify, even
>>  where the character repertoire is identical.
>
>Well, Masons use Samaritan as a cipher for Hebrew, but then they 
>also use Pigpen as a cipher for Latin, and for exactly the same 
>reasons.  Yet nobody proposes to encode Pigpen, despite its 
>unquestionable unintelligibility and use in plain-text documents.

Their use of it as a cipher, as distinct from another kind of 
equivalency, is open to question. I'm in contact with some Mason 
users, and will pose this question to them.

>  > If we encode Phoenician, you can ignore it
>>  forever. Lots of runologists prefer to read Runes
>>  in transliteration, and wondered why we would
>>  bother to encode the Runes.
>
>A strong argument, showing that scholarly users are not the only 
>relevant kinds of users for (some) archaic scripts.

Indeed.

>  > I don't believe that this is true. I think you
>>  are overstating the case. Scholars of writing do
>>  not call all of those variants different
>>  alphabets or different scripts. But in the world
>>  of early West Semitics, that's exactly what
>>  happens.
>
>Not necessarily conclusive: as we found out in the hieroglyphics 
>work, the use of the term "glyph" does not necessarily signal an 
>application of the Unicode character/glyph distinction.

Indeed.

>  > Semiticists are not the only potential users of
>>  Phoenician. Writing Phoenician is not the only
>>  use for writing the Phoenician language. There
>>  are many "history of our alphabet" texts out
>>  there which can't be represented in plain text
>>  because a number of those important nodes aren't
>>  encoded.
>
>All such texts that I've ever seen use comparative tables (not plain 
>text) or illustrations (not plain text).

I have some examples where Greek and Phoenician are used in running 
text, in a work on the history of the origin of the Greek script. 
That will be in the Phoenician proposal.

>  > The Freemasons use Samaritan as well,
>>  interstingly. In my view, it would not make sense
>>  to use Samaritan for Phoenician because the
>>  latter is the mother script.
>
>Is the objection to *calling* it Samaritan, or using Samaritan 
>glyphs as the representative glyphs, or both?

I would consider that Samaritan has attained a typographical maturity 
and independence from the oldest Phoenician.

>  > [T]here are CONTEMPORARY users of
>>  Hebrew/Aramaic/Palaeo-Hebrew/Samaritan who
>>  recognize the difference between these scripts
>>  explicitly.
>
>Well, okay.  I believe all the actual contrasts can be covered by 
>Hebrew, Syriac, and a third script, to be called Phoenician, 
>Palaeo-Hebrew, or Samaritan as seems suitable.

We will present the arguments of the contemporary users (Sanhedrin 
and Mishnaic sources) in due course.

>As for the Talmud, it's the very prototype of fancy text, indeed hypertext.

Heh heh. :-) Lots and lots of ruby....
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sun Dec 28 16:49:56 2003
X-UIDL: a0dc70c6a0e6040657d1bad2ee45aa1c
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:48:11 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AalZn-0004p1-Tm
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:48:07 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0ik829604;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:44:46 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:44:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0ij829598
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:44:46 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034921558@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:44:42 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020412bc152904fe4d@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org>
References: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com> <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:44:15 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1039
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 15:34 -0800 2003-12-28, Peter Kirk wrote:
>On 28/12/2003 13:16, Jim Allan wrote:
>
>>For an example of what might be needed, see Rochelle I. S. Altman's 
>>discussion "Some Aspects of Older Writing Systems: With Focus on 
>>the DSS" at 
>>http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/Altman99.shtml :
>
>Thank you, Jim, for this interesting reference, which I am copying 
>to the Hebrew list.

I agree. I've printed this out and will be reading it on my way to 
Ballina in County Mayo tomorrow. A nice day out. I don't know whether 
the article is relevant, but it wil be a nice read. :-)
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sun Dec 28 16:55:29 2003
X-UIDL: acaadd22abee8e4969596b8bfd18e14f
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:52:14 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aaldj-0004tT-Rb
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:52:11 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0lF829633;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:47:20 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:47:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury.ccil.org (mercury.ccil.org [192.190.237.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0kx829625
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:47:09 -0500
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1AalYB-00066z-00; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:46:27 -0500
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:46:27 -0500
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Message-ID: <20031229004627.GH19753@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com> <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1040
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Peter Kirk scripsit:

> It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a glyph 
> distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in the 
> "serech" example 
> (http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of what 
> is undoubtedly (in Unicode terms) Hebrew script. If this distinction can 
> be verified a case can be made for encoding a separate HEBREW LETTER 
> SIN, equivalent to shin with sin dot. 

Even if the distinction is genuine and not artefactual, it can be handled
by a mandatory ligature that transforms SHIN + SIN DOT into a unique glyph.

-- 
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
        --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
                John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>




From - Sun Dec 28 16:58:22 2003
X-UIDL: 972f634428d02dc17a898d89c2c496c4
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:56:20 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aalhj-0004xY-KZ
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:56:19 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0sZ829962;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:54:35 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:54:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT0sZ829956
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:54:35 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 4FFB8412E66; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:54:15 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEF7B49.9040505@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:54:33 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <20031229001855.GF19753@mercury.ccil.org> <p06020411bc1527078738@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020411bc1527078738@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1041
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 16:41, Michael Everson wrote:

> ...
> I have some examples where Greek and Phoenician are used in running 
> text, in a work on the history of the origin of the Greek script. That 
> will be in the Phoenician proposal.
>
I look forward to seeing this.

>> ...
>> Is the objection to *calling* it Samaritan, or using Samaritan glyphs 
>> as the representative glyphs, or both?
>
>
> I would consider that Samaritan has attained a typographical maturity 
> and independence from the oldest Phoenician.
>
Isn't the same true of modern Greek vs the oldest known Greek 
inscriptions, modern Latin vs the oldest Latin inscriptions, modern CJK 
vs the oldest known inscriptions, etc etc? All of these have a 
continuous history of gradual change, as does Phoenician/Samaritan.


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sun Dec 28 17:11:22 2003
X-UIDL: 5d6c5d9d83d6d6417312907f885f4358
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:05:44 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aalqm-00057Z-T5
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:05:40 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT151830415;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:05:01 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:05:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT150830409
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:05:00 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id 68834408894
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:04:41 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEF7DBB.3010304@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:04:59 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Samaritan case (was: Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script)
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1043
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 16:33, Peter Kirk wrote:

> ...
> I note from http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm that the modern 
> Samaritan community is happy to say that "The Samaritan script is the 
> Palaeo-Hebrew script." It is unclear whether they would accept also 
> the name Phoenician.
>
I was just looking again at this page and especially the table "Forms 
and Pronunciation of Hebrew-Samaritan Scripts" (not plain text!), 
apparently copied from a book but no reference given. I note that this 
table distinguishes "Majuscule" and "Minuscule" forms of Samaritan 
letters. This suggests that there may be a case distinction in Samaritan 
script. This certainly requires further investigation.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sun Dec 28 17:11:22 2003
X-UIDL: 786d0b060cb444ba94aa5b20959c8d13
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:06:34 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aalra-00058i-Up
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:06:30 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT14A830404;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:04:10 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:04:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBT14A830398
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:04:10 -0500
Received: (qmail 24932 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2003 01:04:05 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 29 Dec 2003 01:04:05 -0000
Message-ID: <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:04:04 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
CC: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1042
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

I probably have other things to comment on, but first this:

> Michael, this is not true actually. See the text extract on 
> http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm. It may seriously make my 
> life significantly easier if this text (the Samaritan 
> Torah/Pentateuch), in the Hebrew language, is encoded as Hebrew rather 
> than as Samaritan or Phoenician script. I am prepared to give way if 
> there are other users, including the modern Samaritans, who want it 
> differently. But I have yet to hear from any real users of these 
> scripts who are calling for separate encoding of plain text. 

"is encoded"... by whom?  Encoded by you?  If so, you definitely SHOULD 
encode it as Hebrew.  Encoded by someone else?  If you plan to use it, 
you can easily and mechanically 
convert/transliterate/transcribe/whatever into whatever chunk of Unicode 
is convenient.

Remember, even if all of these scripts are encoded (hell, even if pigpen 
cipher is encoded), the Script Police aren't going to come and take you 
away if you choose not to use them.  And even interfacing with other 
people who do choose to use them is no big deal (besides, you claim that 
there are no other users aside from Semitic scholars, who unanimously 
and universally use the Hebrew script exclusively.  So at worst we'll 
have scripts encoded that will be used by nobody, and that still doesn't 
hurt your work.)

~mark






From - Sun Dec 28 17:11:25 2003
X-UIDL: b708adc832b0d0aad40098bd14e0d2ed
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:08:50 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aalto-0005Bq-3G
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:08:48 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT17R830445;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:07:27 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:07:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT17Q830439
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:07:26 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034922463@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:07:21 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020414bc152ccee1b2@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF7B49.9040505@qaya.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031229001855.GF19753@mercury.ccil.org>
 <p06020411bc1527078738@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7B49.9040505@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:06:54 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1044
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 16:54 -0800 2003-12-28, Peter Kirk wrote:
>On 28/12/2003 16:41, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>>I have some examples where Greek and Phoenician are used in running 
>>text, in a work on the history of the origin of the Greek script. 
>>That will be in the Phoenician proposal.
>>
>I look forward to seeing this.

I'm glad to hear it. :-)

>>>Is the objection to *calling* it Samaritan, or using Samaritan 
>>>glyphs as the representative glyphs, or both?
>>
>>I would consider that Samaritan has attained a typographical 
>>maturity and independence from the oldest Phoenician.
>>
>Isn't the same true of modern Greek vs the oldest known Greek 
>inscriptions, modern Latin vs the oldest Latin inscriptions,

Not, I think, in the same way. The principle distinction there is the 
later advent of case to the system. There's no other, hm, 
"competition" with regard to script identification, or multiple 
language use, for instance. Trajan's Latin glyphs are familiar to all 
of us, for instance. Scholars don't really consider wax-tablet Latin 
to be a different "script" in the same way that they distinguish 
Palaeo-Hebrew (mother of Samaritan) and Nabataen (mother of Arabic), 
for instance.

>modern CJK vs the oldest known inscriptions, etc etc?

The IRG has recently published a document exploring the 
disunification of the Oracle Bone stuff from the later "standard" 
CJK. That too is under investigation, and in the early stages of 
discussion.

>All of these have a continuous history of gradual change, as does 
>Phoenician/Samaritan.

Possibly. But again, it's a question of node identification and 
legibility. We will investigate this in due course.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sun Dec 28 17:21:22 2003
X-UIDL: 9352a8a9ea603fd5c4a7080eb6bf23d7
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:12:15 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aalx5-0005I0-4Z
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:12:11 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1Ak830526;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:10:47 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:10:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBT1Ak830516
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:10:46 -0500
Received: (qmail 25012 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2003 01:10:42 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 29 Dec 2003 01:10:42 -0000
Message-ID: <3FEF7F11.4050904@kli.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:10:41 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
CC: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>, unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com> <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1045
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 12/28/03 18:34, Peter Kirk wrote:

> It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a glyph 
> distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in the 
> "serech" example 
> (http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of 
> what is undoubtedly (in Unicode terms) Hebrew script. If this 
> distinction can be verified a case can be made for encoding a separate 
> HEBREW LETTER SIN, equivalent to shin with sin dot. But it is 
> difficult to verify this when three scribes within the same document 
> make the distinction in three different ways. 

You're going to have to help me with this one.  What is the difference 
you see between shin and sin in this document?  The quality of the 
picture is so poor it's hard to read, but at least one undeniable sin 
doesn't look different (to me) from the shins there.  What are you seeing?

~mark





From - Sun Dec 28 17:21:22 2003
X-UIDL: 85b1c2d85b9d68bf54730bdd4827ce8e
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:15:08 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aalzt-0005Ke-Jp
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:15:05 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1Cf830565;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:12:41 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:12:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1Ce830559
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:12:40 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id EA862413F6B; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:12:20 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEF7F87.9050102@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:12:39 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
Cc: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1046
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 17:04, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> I probably have other things to comment on, but first this:
>
>> Michael, this is not true actually. See the text extract on 
>> http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm. It may seriously make my 
>> life significantly easier if this text (the Samaritan 
>> Torah/Pentateuch), in the Hebrew language, is encoded as Hebrew 
>> rather than as Samaritan or Phoenician script. I am prepared to give 
>> way if there are other users, including the modern Samaritans, who 
>> want it differently. But I have yet to hear from any real users of 
>> these scripts who are calling for separate encoding of plain text. 
>
>
> "is encoded"... by whom?  Encoded by you?  If so, you definitely 
> SHOULD encode it as Hebrew.  Encoded by someone else?  If you plan to 
> use it, you can easily and mechanically 
> convert/transliterate/transcribe/whatever into whatever chunk of 
> Unicode is convenient.


Well, I was hoping someone else might encode it and put it on the 
Internet for me to use, or I might even pay for it. But yes, of course I 
can transcode the text. Actually I think the text is already available 
with some software products, in a legacy encoding.

>
> Remember, even if all of these scripts are encoded (hell, even if 
> pigpen cipher is encoded), the Script Police aren't going to come and 
> take you away if you choose not to use them. ...


Fair enough, Mark. But there are good reasons for using the proper 
script and for not encouraging people to break the rules - which means 
not making rules which all known users want to break. There is also in 
principle the issue of system support for these languages which depends 
on proper labelling of languages and proper encoding, although I don't 
suppose spelling checkers for Phoenician are high on Microsoft's 
priority list!

> ... And even interfacing with other people who do choose to use them 
> is no big deal (besides, you claim that there are no other users aside 
> from Semitic scholars, who unanimously and universally use the Hebrew 
> script exclusively.  So at worst we'll have scripts encoded that will 
> be used by nobody, and that still doesn't hurt your work.)


No, it has just wasted a lot of everyone's time.

>
> ~mark
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Sun Dec 28 17:21:23 2003
X-UIDL: e071b30de12ff85c6810d7766eb74d7d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:20:29 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aam54-0005QF-VQ
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:20:26 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1FX830597;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:15:33 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:15:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1FX830591
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:15:33 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034268530@ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:16:09 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:15:28 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1047
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Mark,

This came through on the public list, which you may have intended, 
but it misses citations the things I wrote that you are criticizing, 
so I'm not sure how to interpret all you are saying....

I don't mind your contribution. Even I admit that the thing is a mess. ;-)

I am sure that the Samaritan Talmud (or whatever) is available in 
Samaritan script as well as in Hebrew script. But remember the 
Sanhedrin. They certainly distinguish between Aramaic/Jewish and 
Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew.

So the question here is, should Samaritan be distinguished from the 
roadmapped Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew or not?

At 20:04 -0500 2003-12-28, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>I probably have other things to comment on, but first this:
>
>Michael, this is not true actually. See the text extract on 
>http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm. It may seriously make my 
>life significantly easier if this text (the Samaritan 
>Torah/Pentateuch), in the Hebrew language, is encoded as Hebrew 
>rather than as Samaritan or Phoenician script. I am prepared to give 
>way if there are other users, including the modern Samaritans, who 
>want it differently. But I have yet to hear from any real users of 
>these scripts who are calling for separate encoding of plain text.
>
>"is encoded"... by whom?  Encoded by you?  If so, you definitely 
>SHOULD encode it as Hebrew.  Encoded by someone else?  If you plan 
>to use it, you can easily and mechanically 
>convert/transliterate/transcribe/whatever into whatever chunk of 
>Unicode is convenient.
>
>Remember, even if all of these scripts are encoded (hell, even if 
>pigpen cipher is encoded), the Script Police aren't going to come 
>and take you away if you choose not to use them.  And even 
>interfacing with other people who do choose to use them is no big 
>deal (besides, you claim that there are no other users aside from 
>Semitic scholars, who unanimously and universally use the Hebrew 
>script exclusively.

I don't claim that. Peter Kirk claims that he speaks for the 
Semiticists in general.

>So at worst we'll have scripts encoded that will be used by nobody, 
>and that still doesn't hurt your work.)

I am certain that an encoded Phoenician (distinct from the Hebrew at 
U+05xx) will have clients. They may not be Peter's Semiticists, but 
those are not disadvantaged if they prefer not to use it.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Sun Dec 28 17:30:28 2003
X-UIDL: 81c2841ed19d57e9376a8d48c87c5766
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:23:06 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aam7d-0005Ss-J8
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:23:05 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1Gp830610;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:16:56 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:16:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1GF830602
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:16:35 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id EBAA8406C8A; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:15:24 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEF803F.5060604@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:15:43 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com> <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org> <3FEF7F11.4050904@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF7F11.4050904@kli.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1048
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 17:10, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> On 12/28/03 18:34, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a 
>> glyph distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in 
>> the "serech" example 
>> (http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of 
>> what is undoubtedly (in Unicode terms) Hebrew script. If this 
>> distinction can be verified a case can be made for encoding a 
>> separate HEBREW LETTER SIN, equivalent to shin with sin dot. But it 
>> is difficult to verify this when three scribes within the same 
>> document make the distinction in three different ways. 
>
>
> You're going to have to help me with this one.  What is the difference 
> you see between shin and sin in this document?  The quality of the 
> picture is so poor it's hard to read, but at least one undeniable sin 
> doesn't look different (to me) from the shins there.  What are you 
> seeing?
>
> ~mark
>
>
>
>
To be honest, I haven't seen anything, because I haven't tried to look 
too closely at the indifferent quality glyphs. I just read what the 
author claims to see, each of the scribes distinguishing sin from shin 
but in different ways.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 05:24:57 2003
X-UIDL: 42a8b627763ef718dee9ceb9b2a318fd
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:30:37 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AamEr-0005ba-9I
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:30:33 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1T4830839;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:04 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1T3830833
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:03 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 1D7EA40C954; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:28:44 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:29:02 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1050
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 17:15, Michael Everson wrote:

> ...
> I don't claim that. Peter Kirk claims that he speaks for the 
> Semiticists in general.
>
Please, Michael, I have never said this. You have repeatedly claimed 
that there are Semiticists, or at least that there are some people, who 
say the opposite to what I have heard from those Semiticists I am in 
touch with. I have asked for evidence of this, and have not received any.

>> So at worst we'll have scripts encoded that will be used by nobody, 
>> and that still doesn't hurt your work.)
>
>
> I am certain that an encoded Phoenician (distinct from the Hebrew at 
> U+05xx) will have clients. They may not be Peter's Semiticists, but 
> those are not disadvantaged if they prefer not to use it.


Same point yet again: who are these clients? Are they using plain text 
not as a cipher? I understand that for characters to be encoded in 
Unicode, evidence of use is required, not just rumour.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 05:25:01 2003
X-UIDL: 1d7f85db80b9593caf58e7520f8514ab
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:38:20 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AamML-0005kA-Hs
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:38:17 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1ac830941;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:36:38 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:36:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBT1ab830931
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:36:37 -0500
Received: (qmail 25128 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2003 01:36:33 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 29 Dec 2003 01:36:33 -0000
Message-ID: <3FEF8520.20701@kli.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:36:32 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
CC: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1051
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 12/28/03 20:15, Michael Everson wrote:

> Mark,
>
> This came through on the public list, which you may have intended, but 
> it misses citations the things I wrote that you are criticizing, so 
> I'm not sure how to interpret all you are saying.... 

This is another one of those cases where I quote a bunch of things, and 
for some unexplainable reason they don't show as quotations on your 
end.  It makes more sense when those are added.

> I don't mind your contribution. Even I admit that the thing is a mess. 
> ;-)
>
> I am sure that the Samaritan Talmud (or whatever) is available in 
> Samaritan script as well as in Hebrew script. But remember the 
> Sanhedrin. They certainly distinguish between Aramaic/Jewish and 
> Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew. 

And the Yadayim, in which they distinguish for ritual purposes.

> So the question here is, should Samaritan be distinguished from the 
> roadmapped Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew or not? 

You got me.  They look different enough to me, but that's totally off 
the top of my head.

> At 20:04 -0500 2003-12-28, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>> I probably have other things to comment on, but first this: 
>
== Begin Peter Kirk ==

>> Michael, this is not true actually. See the text extract on 
>> http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm. It may seriously make my 
>> life significantly easier if this text (the Samaritan 
>> Torah/Pentateuch), in the Hebrew language, is encoded as Hebrew 
>> rather than as Samaritan or Phoenician script. I am prepared to give 
>> way if there are other users, including the modern Samaritans, who 
>> want it differently. But I have yet to hear from any real users of 
>> these scripts who are calling for separate encoding of plain text. 
>
== End Peter Kirk ==
(Begin Mark Shoulson, quoted)

>> "is encoded"... by whom?  Encoded by you?  If so, you definitely 
>> SHOULD encode it as Hebrew.  Encoded by someone else?  If you plan to 
>> use it, you can easily and mechanically 
>> convert/transliterate/transcribe/whatever into whatever chunk of 
>> Unicode is convenient.
>>
>> Remember, even if all of these scripts are encoded (hell, even if 
>> pigpen cipher is encoded), the Script Police aren't going to come and 
>> take you away if you choose not to use them.  And even interfacing 
>> with other people who do choose to use them is no big deal (besides, 
>> you claim that there are no other users aside from Semitic scholars, 
>> who unanimously and universally use the Hebrew script exclusively. 
>
(End Mark Shoulson, quoted)
(Begin Michael Everson, quoted)

> I don't claim that. Peter Kirk claims that he speaks for the 
> Semiticists in general.

(End Michael Everson, quoted)
(top-level, Mark Shoulson)
Right.  And it was Peter Kirk I was responding to.
(end top-level Mark Shoulson)


(Begin Peter)

>> So at worst we'll have scripts encoded that will be used by nobody, 
>> and that still doesn't hurt your work.) 
>
(End Peter)
(Begin Michael)

> I am certain that an encoded Phoenician (distinct from the Hebrew at 
> U+05xx) will have clients. They may not be Peter's Semiticists, but 
> those are not disadvantaged if they prefer not to use it. 

(End Michael)
(back to top-level)

That's what I was saying.  I guess think of it this way:

Either Peter Kirk is right and there will be no clients, or he's wrong 
and there will be clients.

Case 1: Nobody wants Phoenician.

OK!  So the only loss in encoding it is the loss of codepoints, which is 
entirely another discussion, and one that I, at least, don't really 
think is my job to regulate.  That's for the Unicoders-that-be to decide 
if they want to risk throwing away a few blocks.  But otherwise, 
encoding these extra scripts doesn't affect Peter, or other non-users of 
Phoenician, at all.

Case 2: There are people who want Phoenician

Well, then, we'd better encode it for them!

Again, so where's the problem?

~mark

P.S. Is anyone else out there having trouble seeing when I quote text?





From - Mon Dec 29 05:25:04 2003
X-UIDL: f194a4f313ad8ddea529292e1ea50c4d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:49:14 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AamWu-0005um-8c
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:49:12 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1fW830997;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:41:32 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:41:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBT1fV830991
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:41:32 -0500
Received: (qmail 25150 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2003 01:41:28 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 29 Dec 2003 01:41:28 -0000
Message-ID: <3FEF8647.1090207@kli.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:41:27 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
CC: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1052
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

It's awfully hard to prove a negative, Peter.  I'm surprised to hear you 
assert with such certainty... well, more accurately, I'm surprised to 
hear you *question* with such certainty the existence of *someone* out 
there who just possibly might see things differently.

Hence the perception that you're speaking for "all Semiticists."

(I wonder: does Michael himself count as an example?  Sure, he's not a 
Semitic scholar, but then he agrees that the putative clientele would 
not be Semitic scholars.  Admittedly, that way lies madness)

Anyway, as we've seen, it's no skin off your nose if other (imaginary) 
people choose to use other encodings.

~mark



On 12/28/03 20:29, Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 28/12/2003 17:15, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I don't claim that. Peter Kirk claims that he speaks for the 
>> Semiticists in general.
>>
> Please, Michael, I have never said this. You have repeatedly claimed 
> that there are Semiticists, or at least that there are some people, 
> who say the opposite to what I have heard from those Semiticists I am 
> in touch with. I have asked for evidence of this, and have not 
> received any.
>
>>> So at worst we'll have scripts encoded that will be used by nobody, 
>>> and that still doesn't hurt your work.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I am certain that an encoded Phoenician (distinct from the Hebrew at 
>> U+05xx) will have clients. They may not be Peter's Semiticists, but 
>> those are not disadvantaged if they prefer not to use it.
>
>
>
> Same point yet again: who are these clients? Are they using plain text 
> not as a cipher? I understand that for characters to be encoded in 
> Unicode, evidence of use is required, not just rumour.
>





From - Mon Dec 29 05:25:05 2003
X-UIDL: 945b9060a7f673df0215229076a014f6
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:59:04 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AamgQ-000654-5g
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:59:02 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1tY831227;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:55:34 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:55:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT1tX831221
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:55:34 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034270050@ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:56:10 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020417bc15312de7ed@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:51:48 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBT1tX831221
X-archive-position: 1053
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBT1tY831227
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 16:33 -0800 2003-12-28, Peter Kirk wrote:

>>... And where "simple font change" renders the=20
>>text unintelligible, it really says Do Not=20
>>Unify, even where the character repertoire is=20
>>identical.
>>
>This is a reasonable criterion, which needs to be applied consistently.

I think I am trying to be consistent and=20
practical with regard to my approach to=20
disunifications. And unifications.

>>Come on. S=FCtterlin isn't found set in type=20
>>(except possibly in some primers for teaching=20
>>the thing). It's found handwritten in diaries=20
>>and ledgers by people's great grandfathers.
>>
>And Phoenician isn't found set in type,

The Imprimerie Nationale has certainly set=20
Phoenician in type. I have samples. Phoenician's=20
daughter Samaritan has definitely been set in=20
type.

>but handwritten on potsherds (ostraca) or hand=20
>carved on stone, by people's many times great=20
>grandfathers (and possibly ...mothers). But I do=20
>take the point that S=FCtterlin readers and=20
>writers also read standard Latin script and=20
>recognise these two scripts as variants of one=20
>another.

Yes. And in ancient times,=20
Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew and Aramaic>Square=20
Hebrew were recognized as different by Jewish=20
authorities, which is not insignificant.

>>>And, by the way, in case you say that Unicode=20
>>>doesn't encode handwriting, remember that all=20
>>>known examples of Phoenician script are=20
>>>handwritten.
>>
>>Or carved in stone. But aha! there have been=20
>>fonts made for Phoenician, for instance by the=20
>>Imprimerie Nationale.
>>
>And I am sure that fonts have been made for=20
>S=FCtterlin, as one seems to have been used in=20
>preparing=20
>http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/images/suetterlin.jpg.

I guess that S=FCtterlin fonts are pretty recent,=20
and were not widespread back in lead-type and=20
Linotype times when the script was in widespread=20
use.

>>Semiticists are not the only potential users of=20
>>Phoenician. Writing Phoenician is not the only=20
>>use for writing the Phoenician language. There=20
>>are many "history of our alphabet" texts out=20
>>there which can't be represented in plain text=20
>>because a number of those important nodes=20
>>aren't encoded. ...
>
>Well, in most

Many. But not all. I even have a children's book=20
with Phoenician text in it. ;-)

>of these texts the various alphabets are=20
>represented in figures i.e. pure graphics or in=20
>tables which also cannot be represented in plain=20
>text. These same "history of our alphabet" texts=20
>also often include variant forms of Latin script=20
>e.g. italic, black letter, cursive which cannot=20
>be represented in plain text either - certainly=20
>without trespassing on that mathematical block.

Not always, and not in the texts I have to hand.

>>It's OK with me if YOU don't want or need=20
>>Phoenician. Others do. It's OK with me if the=20
>>International Union of Semiticists (who are all=20
>>in *unanimous* agreement that Hebrew *is*=20
>>Phoenician) doesn't want or need Phoenician.=20
>>Other people do, and in plain text, not in font=20
>>markup.
>>
>Again, if there really are such people, find=20
>them and get them to put their names on a=20
>proposal, and I won't object to that proposal.=20
>But I will object to a proposal whose only=20
>supporter is yourself and people who know little=20
>about this family of scripts, and whose=20
>justification is just that it is on the roadmap.

It was put on the Roadmap due to a perceived=20
utility, established use, and conformity with the=20
aims of the Universal Character Set.

>>I guess not all Semiticists worked for the=20
>>Christian organization SIL, if that is what you=20
>>are asking. I don't think that you and Elaine=20
>>speak for every Semiticist in the world. Nor do=20
>>I think that Jony and the Israeli standards=20
>>body do. ...
>
>I make no such claim, and I don't think Elaine=20
>or Jony do either. We are just looking for any=20
>group of scholars, or non-scholars, even=20
>Indo-Europeanists if that is relevant, who do=20
>want a separate script.

The people who have written texts I have to hand=20
seem to have made this distinction, and it seems=20
clear that these texts, as texts, ought to have=20
their distinctions maintained in plain text,=20
rather than by lumping everything together as=20
glyph variants of Hebrew. Again, nothing prevents=20
you from using Hebrew only, whether the scripts=20
are encoded separately or not.

>>>Who are your "*other* clients? Name names, please.
>>
>>Citations from relevant works making the=20
>>distinction will be forthcoming in due course.
>>
>I await details. As we are talking about plain=20
>text, Phoenician etc script used in figures and=20
>tables doesn't count.

It's in plain text. Wait. Patiently. I'm doing the best I can.

>>... In my view, it would not make sense to use=20
>>Samaritan for Phoenician because the latter is=20
>>the mother script.
>>
>Well, this is an interesting concept: does one=20
>script become two simply because of a time gap?

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

>Suppose we find, in a quite different context=20
>and part of the world, an ancient script being=20
>used now by the very small  A community which is=20
>essentially the same script (give or take a few=20
>serif-like embellishments) as one used by the=20
>larger B community several millennia ago. Do we=20
>have to encode separate A and B scripts simply=20
>because one is the mother of the other? Or is it=20
>simply a matter of deciding whether to call the=20
>script A or B? That might be contentious, but=20
>hardly justifies separating the scripts.

Samaritan seems to have features which are unique=20
and unknown in Phoenician, in addition to the=20
glyph shape differences, which makes it worth=20
separate encoding.

>>... The basic book on the History of the Greek=20
>>Alphabet or the History of the Arabic script=20
>>does not. And in all of that kind of=20
>>literature, a basic node-based taxonomy is=20
>>used, with distinctions made between Phoenician=20
>>and Hebrew and Nabataean and Arabic and Greek,=20
>>which ought not to be made by lumping the first=20
>>three into font variants of Hebrew.
>>
>OK, but we are still talking about differences=20
>made in images and tables, not in plain text.

No, Phoenician is used inline in text in texts I have to hand.

>And the distinctions you are proposing are=20
>anyway adequate only for books on the=20
>*Pre-*History of the Greek Alphabet or the=20
>*Pre-*History of the Arabic script, for Unicode=20
>plain text doesn't allow for variants within the=20
>history of these, except for the basic=20
>majuscule/uncial distinction in Greek (and of=20
>course the infamous koppa!)

Books on the history of the Greek or Arabic=20
alphabets are books as important and interesting=20
as any other.

>>... For heaven's sake, Peter, there are=20
>>CONTEMPORARY users of=20
>>Hebrew/Aramaic/Palaeo-Hebrew/Samaritan who=20
>>recognize the difference between these scripts=20
>>explicitly. Indeed "purity" can be at stake=20
>>depending on what "script" is used in terms of=20
>>the (hand)written Talmud. ...
>
>Can you explain this one, please? Also its relevance?

This will be specified in the Samaritan proposal in due course.

>Presumably in Unicode terms this is a matter of=20
>selecting an appropriate font. I have never=20
>heard any suggestion of using anything but=20
>Hebrew/Aramaic square script (one script, not=20
>two!) for the Talmud. Identical glyphs are used=20
>for the Hebrew and Aramaic portions of the=20
>Talmud, surely, just as they certainly are for=20
>the respective parts of the Tanakh (Hebrew=20
>Bible, which contains Aramaic portions).

Well, that's not what was going on in antiquity=20
when script distinctions were being made. I will=20
not go into the details here. They will be made=20
available in due course.

>It may seriously make my life significantly=20
>easier if this text (the Samaritan=20
>Torah/Pentateuch), in the Hebrew language, is=20
>encoded as Hebrew rather than as Samaritan or=20
>Phoenician script. I am prepared to give way if=20
>there are other users, including the modern=20
>Samaritans, who want it differently. But I have=20
>yet to hear from any real users of these scripts=20
>who are calling for separate encoding of plain=20
>text.

Transliteration of Samaritan-encoded text to=20
Hebrew-encoded text would be pretty=20
straightforward. Except that at least some=20
Samaritan text uses ARABIC vowel signs to point=20
the vocalization, so unless that's OK for you in=20
Hebrew you're going to have to transliterate=20
anyway. And since Samaritan has no final=20
consonants as Hebrew does, you'll STILL have to=20
transliterate, even for texts which are otherwise=20
identical.
--=20
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Mon Dec 29 05:25:08 2003
X-UIDL: 3e56445be65f373c2f20e0b3f9995243
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:02:55 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aamk8-0006AK-Sn
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:02:52 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT20u831344;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:00:56 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:00:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBT20t831338
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:00:56 -0500
Received: (qmail 25219 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2003 02:00:52 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 29 Dec 2003 02:00:52 -0000
Message-ID: <3FEF8AD3.5090306@kli.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:00:51 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
CC: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Samaritan case
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7DBB.3010304@qaya.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF7DBB.3010304@qaya.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1054
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Interesting!  Looking at the samples, though, and other samples of 
Samaritan I've seen, I see no instances of the distinct styles being 
used side-by-side as a case distinction.  My guess (and that's all it 
is) is that this "Majuscule"/"Minuscule" distinction is one of writing 
styles: formal/monumental/"printed" (by hand) vs 
informal/handwritten/note-taking.  Certainly that's what the glyphs look 
like.  Naturally, talking to some actual Samaritans will be a must to 
clear all this up.

~mark

On 12/28/03 20:04, Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 28/12/2003 16:33, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I note from http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm that the modern 
>> Samaritan community is happy to say that "The Samaritan script is the 
>> Palaeo-Hebrew script." It is unclear whether they would accept also 
>> the name Phoenician.
>>
> I was just looking again at this page and especially the table "Forms 
> and Pronunciation of Hebrew-Samaritan Scripts" (not plain text!), 
> apparently copied from a book but no reference given. I note that this 
> table distinguishes "Majuscule" and "Minuscule" forms of Samaritan 
> letters. This suggests that there may be a case distinction in 
> Samaritan script. This certainly requires further investigation.
>





From - Mon Dec 29 05:25:08 2003
X-UIDL: f5393f4aac8efea8d4ef584abe5e1488
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:04:40 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aamlo-0006Bp-3s
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:04:36 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT235832316;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:03:05 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:03:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT234832278
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:03:05 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034270294@ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:03:40 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020418bc1536772561@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org>
 <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:02:39 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1056
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 17:29 -0800 2003-12-28, Peter Kirk wrote:

>>I don't claim that. Peter Kirk claims that he speaks for the 
>>Semiticists in general.
>>
>Please, Michael, I have never said this.

I misunderstood you. I apologize.

>You have repeatedly claimed that there are Semiticists, or at least 
>that there are some people, who say the opposite to what I have 
>heard from those Semiticists I am in touch with. I have asked for 
>evidence of this, and have not received any.

Naveh's work certainly agrees with the view that I am promulgating. 
But what I have claimed is that even if all Semiticists in the world 
want to use Hebrew to encode Phoenician and other texts (and nothing 
prevents them from doing so), there are other clients for whom 
plain-text distinction between these scripts is important

>>I am certain that an encoded Phoenician (distinct from the Hebrew 
>>at U+05xx) will have clients. They may not be Peter's Semiticists, 
>>but those are not disadvantaged if they prefer not to use it.
>
>Same point yet again: who are these clients?

People writing on the history of writing systems.

>Are they using plain text not as a cipher?

I believe so.

>I understand that for characters to be encoded in Unicode, evidence 
>of use is required, not just rumour.

You will have evidence in due course. When the proposals are 
published. As I have said. ;-)
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Mon Dec 29 05:25:09 2003
X-UIDL: bd88e92fe70b36faa52d99171d84d164
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:04:55 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aamm2-0006Cf-9Z
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:04:50 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT234832265;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:03:04 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:03:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net ([194.46.8.37])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT233832211
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:03:03 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034270291@ni-mail3.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:03:39 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p0602040fbc1525672595@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF5B77.9040006@qaya.org>
References: <200312280213.hBS2D3I22381@unicode.org>
 <3FEF5B77.9040006@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:02:56 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBT233832211
X-archive-position: 1055
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBT234832265
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Here is some text from a Semiticist historian of=20
writing which may help to explain the approach=20
which we have taken with regard to the parsing of=20
the ancient scripts in question vis =E0 vis the=20
Roadmaps.

Again, this does not impact on the need for some=20
Semiticists to build their databases with=20
Hebrew-script transliteration (or whatever they=20
will wish to call their representation) for their=20
particular linguistic work.

There is a good deal of additional material in=20
Naveh regarding *contemporary* distinctions made=20
between these scripts, much of which will find=20
its way into the eventual proposals for=20
Phoenician and Samaritan. As I have stated,=20
further research into the Aramaic "script"=20
question remains to be done.

Naveh also has a script "family tree" which is=20
not inconsistent with O'Connor's given in N2311,=20
and which, with comparison with even more such=20
trees, will assist us in identifying the=20
appropriate "nodes" which are candidates for=20
encoding.

Joseph Naveh. 1987. Early History of the=20
alphabet: an introduction to West Semitic=20
epigraphy and palaeography. Jerusalem: Magnes=20
Press, The Hebrew University. ISBN 965-223-436-2

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
[pp. 9, 11]
In antiquity Semitic languages were spoken in=20
three areas in the Ancient Near East: In=20
Mesopotamia in the north-east, in Syria-Palestine=20
in the north-west and in the Arabian Peninsula in=20
the south-west. These zones can be defined also=20
as East, West and South. Accordingly, the Semitic=20
languages have a threefold classification:

Eastern: Akkadian, Babylonian, Assyrian.

Western: Canaanite (including Hebrew, Phoenician,=20
Moabite, Ammonite and, probably, Ugaritic),=20
Aramaic.

Southern: South Arabian, Ethiopian, Arabic.

Some languages can be further classified into=20
dialects, but this will be dealt with in the=20
forthcoming chapters. Our aim here is not to=20
discuss details, but merely to show that the=20
division of Semitic scripts does not parallel=20
that of Semitic languages. The East Semitic=20
languages were rendered not in Semitic writing,=20
but in the Sumerian cuneiform script. In other=20
words, Semitic writing can only be either Western=20
or Southern.

The ramification of the Semitic and other=20
alphabetic scripts can be illustrated by a family=20
tree, the trunk of which is the Proto-Canaanite=20
script (see Fig. 1). From this there grew, *c.*=20
1300 B.C., the Proto-Arabic script (ancestor of=20
the South Arabian and the Ethiopian scripts),=20
and, c. 1100 B.C., the archaic Greek script. The=20
Proto-Canaanite script, however, continued to=20
flourish, and its direct offshoot, the Phoenician=20
script, existed until the first centuries A.D.=20
The Hebrew and the Aramaic scripts branched off=20
from the Proto-Canaanite or Phoenician. Aramaic=20
script was widespread throughout the ancient=20
East; it was adopted by the Jews, who developed=20
the Jewish (=3D square Hebrew) script for Aramaic=20
and Hebrew texts, even though the latter is a=20
Canaanite tongue. Classical Arabic, although a=20
South Semitic language, is written in a script=20
that was another offshoot of the Aramaic. The=20
Arabic script developed from that Aramaic branch=20
which was crystallized by the Nabataeans.

All the letters of the Semitic script stand for=20
consonants. This system has been improved in=20
Aramaic and Hebrew by the use of some consonant=20
letters, called *matres lectionis*, to indicate=20
vowels. In the first stage, these were used=20
mainly at the end of words (*he* served for -a,=20
-e and -o, *waw* for -u and *yod* for -i), but=20
later also in medial positions. It was the Greeks=20
who changed some letters into vowel signs: *alef*=20
became A, *he* - E, *'ayin* - O, etc. This has=20
led Gelb to postulate that only Greek and Latin=20
scripts are alphabetic, while the Semitic script=20
is a syllabary system. Gelb rightly claimed that=20
each Semitic letter represents a consonant plus=20
any one of the vowels (or zero vowel). Only in=20
Greek and in its offshoots does each letter stand=20
for either a consonant or a vowel.

It is true that the Greek system is more evolved=20
than the Semitic one. Acknowledging this=20
handicap, medieval writers in Semitic scripts=20
introduced vowel punctuation in order to=20
facilitate the learning of reading and writing,=20
but this auxiliary practice never became an=20
integral part of the writing system.=20
Nevertheless, we cannot accept Gelb's suggestion=20
that Semitic writing be regarded as a syllabary=20
system and that the term "alphabet" be confined=20
to Greek, Latin and Cyrillic scripts. The=20
definition of "alphabet" is not predicated on the=20
values of the letters; the word denotes a system=20
of writing with a limited number of signs (20-30)=20
which have a fixed, "alphabetic" order. The order=20
of the letters in the Greek and Latin alphabets=20
is essentially the same as in the West Semitic=20
scripts. This order was presumably established at=20
the very beginning of the Proto-Canaanite=20
writing. The earliest abecedary - that is,=20
letters written in the fixed alphabetic order -=20
comes from Ugarit and dates back to the=20
fourteenth century B.C. (see below, p. 30).

[NOTA BENE: In my view, Naveh is using the term=20
"script" with Greek, Cyrillic, Latin, Arabic,=20
Jewish, and Hebrew in the same way that the=20
Unicode Standard and the Roadmaps do.]

In order to avoid potentially confusing=20
terminology such as "ancient Hebrew" or=20
"Phoenician-Hebrew", on the one hand, and "square=20
Hebrew" on the other, we shall use "Hebrew" to=20
denote the script which was commonly used by the=20
Hebrews in both Israel and Judah in the First=20
Temple period, and which was later confined to=20
limited Jewish circles (although accepted by the=20
Samaritans, who still use it today). This is what=20
is meant by "Hebrew script" in Talmudic sources.=20
The other Talmudic term, "Assyrian script", known=20
today as "square Hebrew", is that which the Jews=20
developed from Aramaic writing. Following Cross'=20
usage, this script is here termed "Jewish". The=20
Jewish script is a national script which=20
developed from the Aramaic, as did Nabataean,=20
Palmyrene, etc.

[NOTA BENE. Where Naveh uses "Hebrew" and=20
"Jewish", the Roadmap uses "Phoenician"=20
(including at present "Palaeo-Hebrew") and=20
"Hebrew". ME]

[pp. 97, 99-100]
A comparative study of the development of these=20
six letters - which are representative also of=20
the other letters of the alphabet - clearly shows=20
that the Hebrew script preserved the basic forms=20
of the letters to a greater extent than the two=20
sister scripts. The Aramaic script, at the=20
beginning of its independent development, lost=20
the superfluous lines and became a practical=20
writing system. The Phoenician letters also=20
underwent significant changes, but these were due=20
to a slow and gradual evolution. These processes,=20
which can be traced in almost every letter, are=20
perhaps most pronounced in the comparative=20
descriptions of *zayin*, *het* and *yod*, as well=20
as in those of *bet*, *dalet* and *resh*, which=20
develop open heads in the Aramaic and the=20
Phoenician scripts, whereas in the Hebrew script=20
the heads of these letters remain closed. As for=20
the lapidary script, the Aramaic is much more=20
developed than the Phoenician, while the Hebrew=20
script did not develop a lapidary style.

It can be convincingly argued that the=20
development of the Hebrew script cannot be=20
compared with the evolution of the Aramaic and=20
the Phoenician scripts, given the restricted use=20
of the Hebrew script after the destruction of the=20
First Temple. We shall, therefore, compare these=20
scripts as they appear in the inscriptions and=20
manuscripts of the late seventh and early sixth=20
centuries B.C. (Fig. 87). In this period, which=20
preceded the Babylonian Exile, the inhabitants of=20
Judah still lived a normal national life in their=20
own land. In our comparison we should bear in=20
mind that when the Hebrew script began to diverge=20
from the Phoenician in the mid-ninth century=20
B.C., Aramaic inscriptions continued to be=20
written in Phoenician letters for about a hundred=20
years; only in the middle of the eighth century=20
did an independent Aramaic script begin to=20
evolve. Thus around 600 B.C. the Hebrew script=20
had undergone some 250 years of independent=20
development, while the Aramaic script had a=20
history of only some 150 years. Nevertheless, the=20
Hebrew script preserved the older forms, while=20
the Aramaic script underwent further changes,=20
taking on the aspect of a shorthand. The=20
Phoenician script is more evolved than the=20
Hebrew, but much less than the Aramaic. If we=20
assume that the rate of development of the=20
Phoenician script - the direct descendant of the=20
original Proto-Canaanite alphabet was normal,=20
then that of the Aramaic script was extremely=20
rapid, while the Hebrew script developed very=20
sluggishly. These phenomena can be explained by=20
the different geopolitical and cultural factors=20
that prevailed among the peoples using the=20
various scripts.

At first, the Hebrew script was used by both=20
Israel and Judah; then, from the late eighth=20
century on, it was confined to Judah. Thus the=20
script was written by a nation which dwelt in a=20
mountainous land far from international highways,=20
and which tended to preserve its traditional=20
values. The Hebrew script served a well-defined=20
culture that was steeped in tradition.

As a *lingua franca*, Aramaic was used and=20
developed by scribes and merchants who introduced=20
abbreviated letter forms with a view to making=20
writing more rapid and efficient. People using=20
the Aramaic script were generally not Aramaeans.=20
As a commercial and diplomatic medium of=20
communication for many peoples who had little=20
interest in upholding a conservative tradition of=20
writing, the script was stripped of all national=20
sentiment and became strictly functional.

Given the Phoenicians' trade ties throughout the=20
ancient world, their national script was also a=20
relatively widespread means of communication in=20
the commercial sphere. It is therefore=20
understandable that the Phoenician script should=20
take a middle course, compared to the free=20
development of the Aramaic script, on the one=20
hand, and the conservatism of the Hebrew script,=20
on the other.

>From the inception of independent development in=20
each of the three scripts and throughout their=20
history, there was no interaction or reciprocal=20
influence between them. This is also true of the=20
Hebrew script in the Second Temple period, when=20
this script was a relatively weak entity. Purvis,=20
when discussing the development of the Samaritan=20
script, suggests that the Hebrew *yod* in the=20
Second Temple period might have been influenced=20
by the form of the same letter in the Phoenician=20
script. This is difficult to accept. It should be=20
remembered that, since the three scripts evolved=20
from a common ancestor, the development of some=20
similar letter forms is almost inevitable. For=20
instance, the contraction of the *shin* from four=20
bars into three came about independently in both=20
the Phoenician and the Aramaic scripts. Moreover,=20
the early sixth-century B.C. Hebrew epigraphic=20
material shows quite clearly that the Hebrew=20
cursive also developed a three-bar *shin*, but=20
the formal script which survived did not adopt=20
it. As the Aramaic script branched off from the=20
Phoenician later than did the Hebrew, the=20
Phoenician and Aramaic scripts have more letter=20
forms in common. However, the identity or=20
similarity of letters appearing in a late stage=20
of evolution cannot be explained by mutual=20
influence. The simplification of a letter often=20
results in similar forms. The following example=20
will serve as an illustration. The X-shaped=20
*mem*, known in the Phoenician cursive, survived=20
in the Neo-Punic inscriptions of the second=20
century A.D. At the same time an X-shaped *mem*=20
appears in the South Mesopotamian branch of the=20
Aramaic script, in the so-called Elymaic script.=20
Now, it is inconceivable that this resemblance=20
was the result of interaction between the two=20
cultures.

The Phoenician, Hebrew and the (uniform) Aramaic=20
scripts reflect three independent cultures. As=20
such, they did not absorb foreign influences.=20
Even when the use of the Aramaic script was=20
greatly expanded and that of the Hebrew=20
restricted, each script preserved its integrity.=20
On the other hand, we shall see below that both=20
the Hebrew and the Aramaic scripts had an impact=20
on the writing of peoples which possessed a=20
lesser measure of cultural independence.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--=20
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Mon Dec 29 05:25:13 2003
X-UIDL: c43f8570b7fd20a4a01b0885c5f4b1d4
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:40:38 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AanKc-0006o8-5v
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:40:34 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT2cB812800;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:38:12 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:38:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wlu.ca (wluw5.wlu.ca [192.54.242.118])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBT2cB812752
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:38:11 -0500
Received: from WLU-MTA by wlu.ca
	with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:38:10 -0500
Message-Id: <sfef4d42.050@wlu.ca>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:37:41 -0500
From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Fwd: Re: Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=__Part4E109365.0__="
X-archive-position: 1057
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: kfeuerherm@wlu.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=__Part4E109365.0__=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

sorry got the address wrong...

Karlj=FCrgen G. Feuerherm
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies
Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3C5
(519) 884-1970 x3193
--=__Part4E109365.0__=
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:36:51 -0500
From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
To: <hebrew@unicode.com>
Subject: Re: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I suggest using this source with caution. Clearly he doesn't totally =
understand the Semitic spectrum, since he lists East Semitic as Akkadian, =
Babylonian, and Assyrian. Akkadian IS Bablyonian and Assyrian (and Old =
Akkadian) etc.

Also to say that East Semitic was not rendered in 'Semitic writing' is =
rather suspect. 'Semitic' should ONLY be used for language description, =
not for races, not for scripts. Presumably 'script designed by Semitic =
speaking peoples' is what is really meant. Nevertheless, the degree of =
sloppiness here is disturbing.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate what is said as a contribution to node =
analysis, but please do check out the other things he says carefully.

K

Karlj=FCrgen G. Feuerherm
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies
Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3C5
(519) 884-1970 x3193
>>> Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com> 12/28/03 9:02 PM >>>
Here is some text from a Semiticist historian of=20
writing which may help to explain the approach=20
which we have taken with regard to the parsing of=20
the ancient scripts in question vis =E0 vis the=20
Roadmaps.

Again, this does not impact on the need for some=20
Semiticists to build their databases with=20
Hebrew-script transliteration (or whatever they=20
will wish to call their representation) for their=20
particular linguistic work.

There is a good deal of additional material in=20
Naveh regarding *contemporary* distinctions made=20
between these scripts, much of which will find=20
its way into the eventual proposals for=20
Phoenician and Samaritan. As I have stated,=20
further research into the Aramaic "script"=20
question remains to be done.

Naveh also has a script "family tree" which is=20
not inconsistent with O'Connor's given in N2311,=20
and which, with comparison with even more such=20
trees, will assist us in identifying the=20
appropriate "nodes" which are candidates for=20
encoding.

Joseph Naveh. 1987. Early History of the=20
alphabet: an introduction to West Semitic=20
epigraphy and palaeography. Jerusalem: Magnes=20
Press, The Hebrew University. ISBN 965-223-436-2

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
[pp. 9, 11]
In antiquity Semitic languages were spoken in=20
three areas in the Ancient Near East: In=20
Mesopotamia in the north-east, in Syria-Palestine=20
in the north-west and in the Arabian Peninsula in=20
the south-west. These zones can be defined also=20
as East, West and South. Accordingly, the Semitic=20
languages have a threefold classification:

Eastern: Akkadian, Babylonian, Assyrian.

Western: Canaanite (including Hebrew, Phoenician,=20
Moabite, Ammonite and, probably, Ugaritic),=20
Aramaic.

Southern: South Arabian, Ethiopian, Arabic.

Some languages can be further classified into=20
dialects, but this will be dealt with in the=20
forthcoming chapters. Our aim here is not to=20
discuss details, but merely to show that the=20
division of Semitic scripts does not parallel=20
that of Semitic languages. The East Semitic=20
languages were rendered not in Semitic writing,=20
but in the Sumerian cuneiform script. In other=20
words, Semitic writing can only be either Western=20
or Southern.

The ramification of the Semitic and other=20
alphabetic scripts can be illustrated by a family=20
tree, the trunk of which is the Proto-Canaanite=20
script (see Fig. 1). From this there grew, *c.*=20
1300 B.C., the Proto-Arabic script (ancestor of=20
the South Arabian and the Ethiopian scripts),=20
and, c. 1100 B.C., the archaic Greek script. The=20
Proto-Canaanite script, however, continued to=20
flourish, and its direct offshoot, the Phoenician=20
script, existed until the first centuries A.D.=20
The Hebrew and the Aramaic scripts branched off=20
from the Proto-Canaanite or Phoenician. Aramaic=20
script was widespread throughout the ancient=20
East; it was adopted by the Jews, who developed=20
the Jewish (=3D square Hebrew) script for Aramaic=20
and Hebrew texts, even though the latter is a=20
Canaanite tongue. Classical Arabic, although a=20
South Semitic language, is written in a script=20
that was another offshoot of the Aramaic. The=20
Arabic script developed from that Aramaic branch=20
which was crystallized by the Nabataeans.

All the letters of the Semitic script stand for=20
consonants. This system has been improved in=20
Aramaic and Hebrew by the use of some consonant=20
letters, called *matres lectionis*, to indicate=20
vowels. In the first stage, these were used=20
mainly at the end of words (*he* served for -a,=20
-e and -o, *waw* for -u and *yod* for -i), but=20
later also in medial positions. It was the Greeks=20
who changed some letters into vowel signs: *alef*=20
became A, *he* - E, *'ayin* - O, etc. This has=20
led Gelb to postulate that only Greek and Latin=20
scripts are alphabetic, while the Semitic script=20
is a syllabary system. Gelb rightly claimed that=20
each Semitic letter represents a consonant plus=20
any one of the vowels (or zero vowel). Only in=20
Greek and in its offshoots does each letter stand=20
for either a consonant or a vowel.

It is true that the Greek system is more evolved=20
than the Semitic one. Acknowledging this=20
handicap, medieval writers in Semitic scripts=20
introduced vowel punctuation in order to=20
facilitate the learning of reading and writing,=20
but this auxiliary practice never became an=20
integral part of the writing system.=20
Nevertheless, we cannot accept Gelb's suggestion=20
that Semitic writing be regarded as a syllabary=20
system and that the term "alphabet" be confined=20
to Greek, Latin and Cyrillic scripts. The=20
definition of "alphabet" is not predicated on the=20
values of the letters; the word denotes a system=20
of writing with a limited number of signs (20-30)=20
which have a fixed, "alphabetic" order. The order=20
of th

--=__Part4E109365.0__=--




From - Mon Dec 29 05:25:14 2003
X-UIDL: 1f6210aea1efb2be75e705ebc097161d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:45:36 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AanPQ-0006t0-86
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:45:32 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT2hG815986;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:43:16 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:43:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wlu.ca (wluw5.wlu.ca [192.54.242.118])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBT2hF815980
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:43:15 -0500
Received: from WLU-MTA by wlu.ca
	with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:43:15 -0500
Message-Id: <sfef4e73.052@wlu.ca>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:42:33 -0500
From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBT2hF815980
X-archive-position: 1058
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: kfeuerherm@wlu.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBT2hG815986
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Sutterlin (I think no =FC) IS set in type.

I have several geometry schoolbooks to prove it. (I'm not near them at th=
e moment though.)

K

Karlj=FCrgen G. Feuerherm
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies
Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3C5
(519) 884-1970 x3193
>>> Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com> 12/28/03 8:51 PM >>>
At 16:33 -0800 2003-12-28, Peter Kirk wrote:

>>... And where "simple font change" renders the=20
>>text unintelligible, it really says Do Not=20
>>Unify, even where the character repertoire is=20
>>identical.
>>
>This is a reasonable criterion, which needs to be applied consistently.

I think I am trying to be consistent and=20
practical with regard to my approach to=20
disunifications. And unifications.

>>Come on. S=FCtterlin isn't found set in type=20
>>(except possibly in some primers for teaching=20
>>the thing). It's found handwritten in diaries=20
>>and ledgers by people's great grandfathers.
>>
>And Phoenician isn't found set in type,

The Imprimerie Nationale has certainly set=20
Phoenician in type. I have samples. Phoenician's=20
daughter Samaritan has definitely been set in=20
type.

>but handwritten on potsherds (ostraca) or hand=20
>carved on stone, by people's many times great=20
>grandfathers (and possibly ...mothers). But I do=20
>take the point that S=FCtterlin readers and=20
>writers also read standard Latin script and=20
>recognise these two scripts as variants of one=20
>another.

Yes. And in ancient times,=20
Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew and Aramaic>Square=20
Hebrew were recognized as different by Jewish=20
authorities, which is not insignificant.

>>>And, by the way, in case you say that Unicode=20
>>>doesn't encode handwriting, remember that all=20
>>>known examples of Phoenician script are=20
>>>handwritten.
>>
>>Or carved in stone. But aha! there have been=20
>>fonts made for Phoenician, for instance by the=20
>>Imprimerie Nationale.
>>
>And I am sure that fonts have been made for=20
>S=FCtterlin, as one seems to have been used in=20
>preparing=20
>http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/images/suetterlin.jpg.

I guess that S=FCtterlin fonts are pretty recent,=20
and were not widespread back in lead-type and=20
Linotype times when the script was in widespread=20
use.

>>Semiticists are not the only potential users of=20
>>Phoenician. Writing Phoenician is not the only=20
>>use for writing the Phoenician language. There=20
>>are many "history of our alphabet" texts out=20
>>there which can't be represented in plain text=20
>>because a number of those important nodes=20
>>aren't encoded. ...
>
>Well, in most

Many. But not all. I even have a children's book=20
with Phoenician text in it. ;-)

>of these texts the various alphabets are=20
>represented in figures i.e. pure graphics or in=20
>tables which also cannot be represented in plain=20
>text. These same "history of our alphabet" texts=20
>also often include variant forms of Latin script=20
>e.g. italic, black letter, cursive which cannot=20
>be represented in plain text either - certainly=20
>without trespassing on that mathematical block.

Not always, and not in the texts I have to hand.

>>It's OK with me if YOU don't want or need=20
>>Phoenician. Others do. It's OK with me if the=20
>>International Union of Semiticists (who are all=20
>>in *unanimous* agreement that Hebrew *is*=20
>>Phoenician) doesn't want or need Phoenician.=20
>>Other people do, and in plain text, not in font=20
>>markup.
>>
>Again, if there really are such people, find=20
>them and get them to put their names on a=20
>proposal, and I won't object to that proposal.=20
>But I will object to a proposal whose only=20
>supporter is yourself and people who know little=20
>about this family of scripts, and whose=20
>justification is just that it is on the roadmap.

It was put on the Roadmap due to a perceived=20
utility, established use, and conformity with the=20
aims of the Universal Character Set.

>>I guess not all Semiticists worked for the=20
>>Christian organization SIL, if that is what you=20
>>are asking. I don't think that you and Elaine=20
>>speak for every Semiticist in the world. Nor do=20
>>I think that Jony and the Israeli standards=20
>>body do. ...
>
>I make no such claim, and I don't think Elaine=20
>or Jony do either. We are just looking for any=20
>group of scholars, or non-scholars, even=20
>Indo-Europeanists if that is relevant, who do=20
>want a separate script.

The people who have written texts I have to hand=20
seem to have made this distinction, and it seems=20
clear that these texts, as texts, ought to have=20
their distinctions maintained in plain text,=20
rather than by lumping everything together as=20
glyph variants of Hebrew. Again, nothing prevents=20
you from using Hebrew only, whether the scripts=20
are encoded separately or not.

>>>Who are your "*other* clients? Name names, please.
>>
>>Citations from relevant works making the=20
>>distinction will be forthcoming in due course.
>>
>I await details. As we are talking about plain=20
>text, Phoenician etc script used in figures and=20
>tables doesn't count.

It's in plain text. Wait. Patiently. I'm doing the best I can.

>>... In my view, it would not make sense to use=20
>>Samaritan for Phoenician because the latter is=20
>>the mother script.
>>
>Well, this is an interesting concept: does one=20
>script become two simply because of a time gap?

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

>Suppose we find, in a quite different context=20
>and part of the world, an ancient script being=20
>used now by the very small  A community which is=20
>essentially the same script (give or take a few=20
>serif-like embellishments) as one used by the=20
>larger B community several millennia ago. Do we=20
>have to encode separate A and B scripts simply=20
>because one is the mother of the other? Or is it=20
>simply a matter of deciding whether to call the=20
>script A or B? That might be contentious, but=20
>hardly justifies separating the scripts.

Samaritan seems to have features which are unique=20
and unknown in Phoenician, in addition to the=20
glyph shape differences, which makes it worth=20
separate encoding.

>>... The basic book on the History of the Greek=20
>>Alphabet or the History of the Arabic script=20
>>does not. And in all of that kind of=20
>>literature, a basic node-based taxonomy is=20
>>used, with distinctions made between Phoenician=20
>>and Hebrew and Nabataean and Arabic and Greek,=20
>>which ought not to be made by lumping the first=20
>>three into font variants of Hebrew.
>>
>OK, but we are still talking about differences=20
>made in images and tables, not in plain text.

No, Phoenician is used inline in text in texts I have to hand.

>And the distinctions you are proposing are=20
>anyway adequate only for books on the=20
>*Pre-*History of the Greek Alphabet or the=20
>*Pre-*History of the Arabic script, for Unicode=20
>plain text doesn't allow for variants within the=20
>history of these, except for the basic=20
>majuscule/uncial distinction in Greek (and of=20
>course the infamous koppa!)

Books on the history of the Greek or Arabic=20
alphabets are books as important and interesting=20
as any other.

>>... For heaven's sake, Peter, there are=20
>>CONTEMPORARY users of=20
>>Hebrew/Aramaic/Palaeo-Hebrew/Samaritan who=20
>>recognize the difference between these scripts=20
>>explicitly. Indeed "purity" can be at stake=20
>>depending on what "script" is used in terms of=20
>>the (hand)written Talmud. ...
>
>Can you explain this one, please? Also its relevance?

This will be specified in the Samaritan proposal in due course.

>Presumably in Unicode terms this is a matter of=20
>selecting an appropriate font. I have never=20
>heard any suggestion of using anything but=20
>Hebrew/Aramaic square script (one script, not=20
>two!) for the Talmud. Identical glyphs are used=20
>for the Hebrew and Aramaic portions of the=20
>Talmud, surely, just as they certainly are for=20
>the respective parts of the Tanakh (Hebrew=20
>Bible, which contains Aramaic portions).

Well, that's not what was going on in antiquity=20
when script distinctions were being made. I will=20
not go into the details here. They will be made=20
available in due course.

>It may seriously make my life significantly=20
>easier if this text (the Samaritan=20
>Torah/Pentateuch), in the Hebrew language, is=20
>encoded as Hebrew rather than as Samaritan or=20
>Phoenician script. I am prepared to give way if=20
>there are other users, including the modern=20
>Samaritans, who want it differently. But I have=20
>yet to hear from any real users of these scripts=20
>who are calling for separate encoding of plain=20
>text.

Transliteration of Samaritan-encoded text to=20
Hebrew-encoded text would be pretty=20
straightforward. Except that at least some=20
Samaritan text uses ARABIC vowel signs to point=20
the vocalization, so unless that's OK for you in=20
Hebrew you're going to have to transliterate=20
anyway. And since Samaritan has no final=20
consonants as Hebrew does, you'll STILL have to=20
transliterate, even for texts which are otherwise=20
identical.
--=20
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com






From - Mon Dec 29 05:25:18 2003
X-UIDL: e3fcf783325b0e5f0a2d885b99db2cfe
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 03:01:59 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AanfG-0007BF-Kw
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 03:01:54 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT307829741;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:00:07 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:00:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wlu.ca (wluw5.wlu.ca [192.54.242.118])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBT306829735
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:00:07 -0500
Received: from WLU-MTA by wlu.ca
	with Novell_GroupWise; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:00:04 -0500
Message-Id: <sfef5264.059@wlu.ca>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:59:39 -0500
From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
To: <mark@kli.org>, <peterkirk@qaya.org>
Cc: <everson@evertype.com>, <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBT306829735
X-archive-position: 1059
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: kfeuerherm@wlu.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBT307829741
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

I suppose I'm pedantic in my posts, however...

Phoenician spelling checkers aren't possible just now: there are too many=
 words whose identity is unknown, and which consequently we can't be sure=
 are spelled correctly...

K

Karlj=FCrgen G. Feuerherm
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies
Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3C5
(519) 884-1970 x3193
>>> Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org> 12/28/03 8:12 PM >>>
On 28/12/2003 17:04, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> I probably have other things to comment on, but first this:
>
>> Michael, this is not true actually. See the text extract on=20
>> http://www.the-samaritans.com/script.htm. It may seriously make my=20
>> life significantly easier if this text (the Samaritan=20
>> Torah/Pentateuch), in the Hebrew language, is encoded as Hebrew=20
>> rather than as Samaritan or Phoenician script. I am prepared to give=20
>> way if there are other users, including the modern Samaritans, who=20
>> want it differently. But I have yet to hear from any real users of=20
>> these scripts who are calling for separate encoding of plain text.=20
>
>
> "is encoded"... by whom?  Encoded by you?  If so, you definitely=20
> SHOULD encode it as Hebrew.  Encoded by someone else?  If you plan to=20
> use it, you can easily and mechanically=20
> convert/transliterate/transcribe/whatever into whatever chunk of=20
> Unicode is convenient.


Well, I was hoping someone else might encode it and put it on the=20
Internet for me to use, or I might even pay for it. But yes, of course I=20
can transcode the text. Actually I think the text is already available=20
with some software products, in a legacy encoding.

>
> Remember, even if all of these scripts are encoded (hell, even if=20
> pigpen cipher is encoded), the Script Police aren't going to come and=20
> take you away if you choose not to use them. ...


Fair enough, Mark. But there are good reasons for using the proper=20
script and for not encouraging people to break the rules - which means=20
not making rules which all known users want to break. There is also in=20
principle the issue of system support for these languages which depends=20
on proper labelling of languages and proper encoding, although I don't=20
suppose spelling checkers for Phoenician are high on Microsoft's=20
priority list!

> ... And even interfacing with other people who do choose to use them=20
> is no big deal (besides, you claim that there are no other users aside=20
> from Semitic scholars, who unanimously and universally use the Hebrew=20
> script exclusively.  So at worst we'll have scripts encoded that will=20
> be used by nobody, and that still doesn't hurt your work.)


No, it has just wasted a lot of everyone's time.

>
> ~mark
>
>
>
>
>


--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/








From - Mon Dec 29 05:25:21 2003
X-UIDL: 13e19636942e54637b725eb9a0434dce
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:24:03 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aaowi-0001Jc-HL
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:24:00 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT4Hj800403;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:17:50 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:17:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.187])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBT4HP832622
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:17:45 -0500
Received: from smrtytrek.com ([204.101.137.194])
          by tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP
          id <20031229041654.WRDT13528.tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net@smrtytrek.com>
          for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:16:54 -0500
Message-ID: <3FEFAA74.2080809@smrtytrek.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:15:48 -0500
From: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030916
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com> <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1060
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: jallan@smrtytrek.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Peter Kirk wrote:

> But I think that this document should also be taken with a big pinch 
> of salt.

I agree.

It needs looking into *carefully*.

> The author assert that "In trilinear limit systems, the symbols move 
> up and down according to the stress rhythms of the languages. // 
> Durational notation, that is, the length of time a sound should be 
> held, is recorded by the amount of movement from side-to-side, that 
> is, expansions and contractions of the space between graphic forms." 
> But this is simply untrue as a generalisation across many script 
> systems, even if it is true of some examples of some scripts. There is 
> of course an obvious tendency for some writers of any language to 
> write important words, those stressed when spoken, with larger or more 
> carefully shaped and spaced glyphs, and to write secondary material, 
> which is likely to be spoken hurriedly, with small and indistinct 
> glyphs. But this kind of variation is surely beyond the scope of Unicode.

Not if it can be shown to be consistently used within some scripts. The 
lowering of the height of some characters and the variation of some 
characters in a stone inscription is more convincing than in penned text 
as *less* likely to be accidental.

> It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a glyph 
> distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in the 
> "serech" example 
> (http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of 
> what is undoubtedly (in Unicode terms) Hebrew script. If this 
> distinction can be verified a case can be made for encoding a separate 
> HEBREW LETTER SIN, equivalent to shin with sin dot. But it is 
> difficult to verify this when three scribes within the same document 
> make the distinction in three different ways.

Yes.

By the same author on epigraphical matters see:

1.) "The Writing World of the Dead Sea Scrolls" at 
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/altman_dss.html
2.) "The Official Report on the James Ossuary" at 
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm
3.) "The Temple Tablet" at 
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/report_temple_tablet.htm
4.) "Updates on the Ossuary of Ya'acob bar Yosef and the Temple Tablet" 
at http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/altmanupdates.htm

I do not know to what extent her statements about stress and variant 
forms of glyphs in Phoenician are her own or whether they are now 
generally accepted or are hotly debated.

Jim Allan





From - Mon Dec 29 05:54:52 2003
X-UIDL: 6aa0e0e49faf280f63aac19218f9e7a0
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:51:59 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaxoM-0004jr-UK
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:51:58 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTDjQ811254;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:45:26 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:45:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTDjP811236
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:45:25 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id E1E76406C75; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:45:14 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 05:45:22 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
Cc: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org> <3FEF8647.1090207@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF8647.1090207@kli.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1061
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 17:41, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> It's awfully hard to prove a negative, Peter.  I'm surprised to hear 
> you assert with such certainty... well, more accurately, I'm surprised 
> to hear you *question* with such certainty the existence of *someone* 
> out there who just possibly might see things differently.
>
"*question* with such certainty" sounds like an oxymoron to me. I claim 
no certainty, I am just asking questions. It is Michael who claims 
certainty, that there are such people. I question his certainty, unless 
his "someone" is just himself.

> ...
> Anyway, as we've seen, it's no skin off your nose if other (imaginary) 
> people choose to use other encodings.
> ...


Well, to avoid multiplying postings, I will quote and reply to your 
(Mark's) other posting here:

> Case 1: Nobody wants Phoenician.
>
> OK!  So the only loss in encoding it is the loss of codepoints, ... 
> encoding these extra scripts doesn't affect Peter, or other non-users 
> of Phoenician, at all.


It does, because it implies a presumption that those of us, that is 
everyone, who represent Phoenician text with codes from the Hebrew block 
are not complying with Unicode, and it leads to a continuing tension 
between a very laudable desire to follow the standard (one which we 
should surely be encouraging!) and the practical preference for the more 
simple solution of using Hebrew script. It also implies a recommendation 
to implementers to use precious resources to support this Phoenician 
script when it is neither needed not wanted, and not to provide support 
for the Phoenician etc language written in Hebrew script. It is also a 
great waste of everyone's time, especially that of Michael who seems 
irreplaceable, to propose and standardise an unwanted script.

To put it bluntly, if a new Phoenician script is encoded I will be 
forced into the position of recommending Semiticists to ignore what 
Unicode has just done - which will make it very hard for me to persuade 
them to use Unicode for Hebrew either, instead they will stick to their 
visual order legacy encodings with continuing confusion for everyone.

>
> Case 2: There are people who want Phoenician
>
> Well, then, we'd better encode it for them!


Agreed. If we find such people, and they really will use Phoenician in 
plain text, I have no problem in encoding it for them. But, as I said 
before, new character proposals, and so a fortiori new script proposals, 
need to be justified by actual usage and user requirements, not just by 
Michael's unsupported assertions that there is such a user community.


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 06:04:48 2003
X-UIDL: 90e5bcb6dbcb15173eaf6dc47867faad
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:01:21 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AaxxQ-00050f-Dr
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:01:20 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTDxF813535;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:59:15 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:59:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTDxE813529
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:59:14 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 1028740D4B7; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:59:02 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF0332E.6070308@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 05:59:10 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <p06020417bc15312de7ed@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020417bc15312de7ed@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1062
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 17:51, Michael Everson wrote:

> ... (snipping a lot because there is nothing new)
>
>> And the distinctions you are proposing are anyway adequate only for 
>> books on the *Pre-*History of the Greek Alphabet or the *Pre-*History 
>> of the Arabic script, for Unicode plain text doesn't allow for 
>> variants within the history of these, except for the basic 
>> majuscule/uncial distinction in Greek (and of course the infamous 
>> koppa!)
>
>
> Books on the history of the Greek or Arabic alphabets are books as 
> important and interesting as any other.
>
Absolutely. And to represent these books in plain text, in the same way 
as you insist on representing books on the pre-history of these 
alphabets, you will have to define within Unicode a whole raft of 
different Greek and Arabic letter forms: archaic Greek, classical 
(various local variants), Hellenistic, Byzantine, modern, etc etc; Kufi, 
Naskh, Nastaliq etc etc. Instead you just have two shapes for each Greek 
letter (capital and small) and one for each Arabic letter; any further 
distinctions have to be made with markup or in images, just as I propose 
should be done for Phoenician, Samaritan etc.

> ...
>
>> Presumably in Unicode terms this is a matter of selecting an 
>> appropriate font. I have never heard any suggestion of using anything 
>> but Hebrew/Aramaic square script (one script, not two!) for the 
>> Talmud. Identical glyphs are used for the Hebrew and Aramaic portions 
>> of the Talmud, surely, just as they certainly are for the respective 
>> parts of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, which contains Aramaic portions).
>
>
> Well, that's not what was going on in antiquity when script 
> distinctions were being made. I will not go into the details here. 
> They will be made available in due course.
>
This is certainly what is going on in mediaeval and modern Bible texts, 
in which Hebrew and Aramaic are written with precisely the same glyphs 
and glyph repertoire. If I send you scans showing the boundary between 
Hebrew and Aramaic sections, neither you nor anyone else will be able to 
say where the boundary is, if you don't actually know the languages (or 
you might be able to hazard a guess from frequency counts). But we must 
all remember that script distinctions can be quite separate from 
language distinctions.


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 06:04:49 2003
X-UIDL: 0c398758bddf2cff93e57327fec2da7b
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:04:03 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aaxzz-00055r-33
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:03:59 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTE2M813558;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:02:22 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:02:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTE2M813552
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:02:22 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 46ADE40D657; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:02:12 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF033ED.9070907@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 06:02:21 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org> <p06020418bc1536772561@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020418bc1536772561@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1063
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 18:02, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 17:29 -0800 2003-12-28, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>>> I don't claim that. Peter Kirk claims that he speaks for the 
>>> Semiticists in general.
>>>
>> Please, Michael, I have never said this.
>
>
> I misunderstood you. I apologize.
>
Thank you.

> ...
>
>> I understand that for characters to be encoded in Unicode, evidence 
>> of use is required, not just rumour.
>
>
> You will have evidence in due course. When the proposals are 
> published. As I have said. ;-)


Fair enough. If a proposal appears with adequate evidence, I will not 
oppose it. If none ever appears, I will not be sorry. Perhaps we can 
even drop this matter until there is something on the table.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 06:24:49 2003
X-UIDL: ed7bfefad744ce4b7a173739eabd3ce2
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:22:36 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AayHx-0005gX-Q0
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:22:33 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEKM814040;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:20:23 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:20:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jhuml3.jhu.edu (jhuml3.jhu.edu [128.220.2.66])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEKH814030
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:20:22 -0500
Received: from jhuml3.jhu.edu (jhuml3.jhu.edu [128.220.2.66])
 by jhuml3.jhu.edu (PMDF V6.2-X17 #30840)
 with SMTP id <0HQN0022YU6V2T@jhuml3.jhu.edu> for hebrew@unicode.org; Mon,
 29 Dec 2003 09:19:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jhuml3.jhu.edu ([128.220.2.66])
 by jhuml3.jhu.edu (SAVSMTP 3.1.0.29) with SMTP id M2003122909194516723 for
 <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:19:45 -0500
Received: from [128.220.220.159] (moon.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.220.159])
 by jhuml3.jhu.edu (PMDF V6.2-X17 #30840) id <0HQN00301UGWW9@jhuml3.jhu.edu>
 (original mail from dean.snyder@jhu.edu) for hebrew@unicode.org; Mon,
 29 Dec 2003 09:19:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [128.220.220.159] (moon.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.220.159])
 by jhuml3.jhu.edu (PMDF V6.2-X17 #30840)
 with ESMTP id <0HQN003PKUGV7F@jhuml3.jhu.edu> for hebrew@unicode.org; Mon,
 29 Dec 2003 09:19:43 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:20:15 -0500
From: Dean Snyder <dean.snyder@jhu.edu>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
In-reply-to: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
To: Unicode List <unicode@unicode.org>, hebrew@unicode.org
Message-id: <20031229142015.14704@smtp.jhu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail 4.2 us Carbon <http://www.ctmdev.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
X-archive-position: 1066
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: dean.snyder@jhu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Jim Allan wrote at 4:16 PM on Sunday, December 28, 2003:

>James Kass wrote on using variation selectors for fine glyph variations:
>
>> So, that approach might meet epigraphers' needs while enabling
>> painless cross-variant searching, and still permit scholars to
>> get on with encoding their texts as they see fit. 
>
>For an example of what might be needed, see Rochelle I. S. Altman's 
>discussion "Some Aspects of Older Writing Systems: With Focus on the 
>DSS" at http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/Altman99.shtml :
>
>Altman indicates how differences in ligaturing, height, spacing and 
>glyph variation are used in the unpointed  "Phoenician/Hebraic Writing 
>Systems" to indicate emphasis, pause, stress and even the difference 
>between shin and sin.
>
>Encoding these texts with reasonable fullness would require a "stressed 
>variant" variation selector, vowel phone variation selectors, a sin/shin 
>variation selector as well as ZWJ and variant spaces already encoded.

I would be extremely reticent about using this article as an authority in
determining Northwest Semitic script system features.

Just a few of the caution signs in this Altman article:

* "The outer framework of Western writing systems consists of two
horizontal lines ... The main purpose of a bilinear limit system is to
confine and constrain the written word. Such limit systems intentionally
"freeze" the words into an unchanging form to preserve the magical power
of the word and to control people and things. ... Bilinear limit systems
are preferred by magical-mystical oriented societies."

* "Unlike the mystical-magical "frozen" bilinear limit system, the North-
West Semitic pragmatic-practical writing systems use the "flexible"
trilinear limit system."

* In her treatment of the Phoenician Kilamu inscription Altman claims
glyph modification based on stress and duration, but gives not one
character of phonemically or morphonemically analyzed text to support her
assertions!

* She makes sweeping paleographical judgments based on a HAND DRAWN image
of the text, not on photographs or, even better, the original!

* In order to support her stress/duration thesis when dealing with some
Exodus texts from Murabba'at, Altman conveniently replaces standard
"textbook" explanations of Hebrew stress by her own very subjective,
arbitrary, and unsubstantiated theory:

"The textbooks tell us that stress is grammatically determined in Hebrew,
and this is true. What the textbooks do not tell us is that what is true
in theory is not always true in practice. Stress is very flexible and a
specific syllable may receive none, secondary (medial), or primary stress
- even in Hebrew. Stress can either be intrinsic, that is, the normal
(textbook) pronunciation of the word, or extrinsic, that is, impressed by
musical, poetic, or rhetorical requirements -- of which emphasis is the
most common. In other words, any document that records quoted statements
may or may not follow the intrinsic (normal) rules for pronunciation.
This is an important point to remember when examining these two fragments
from Murabba'at"

* Altman - "Ductus (the direction of a pen or brush stroke) cannot be
used to isolate scribal hands in [formal] scripts and fonts." 

In addition to incorrectly defining ductus, she makes the unsubstantiated
statement that one cannot distinguish scribal hands in formal scripts
(except by detecting her "ideographs", which can be as minimal as one
character in a word!)

* "Ancient writing systems also have a hierarchy of sizes: the largest
documents are always 'The Law'."

* "scripts do NOT develop, they mutate" [footnote 33]

33 "The concept that scripts 'develop' is quite erroneous and stems from
the conflation of a scribe with a calligrapher. Development implies that
a letter change here, another there, until, finally, we have a new
script. Scripts, however, are closed systems, carefully designed to work
within the complex unity we call a writing system. Script families
consist of a script, the class, and numerous mutations, fonts,
descendants of the class. All modern "scripts," for example, are
descendants, mutations, of precisely four script classes. All uppercase
serifed fonts are descendants, mutations, of Roman Capitals and all
lowercase serifed fonts are mutations of North African half-uncials; all
modern sans-serif uppercase fonts are mutations of Roman Rustic Capitals
and all lowercase fonts are mutations of Roman half-uncials. There are
only two script classes for Hebrew, Paleo-Hebraic and Square Aramaic: The
fonts used in the documents from, for instance, Gezer, are mutations of
Paleo-Hebraic and the fonts used for the majority of the documents found
in the Judean Desert and still used today are mutations of the Square
Aramaic. Likewise, there are only two script classes for Greek, Attic
Capitals and Constantine's ethnic-blend "Uncial." There are very few
script classes in any writing system, no matter the language for which
that script system is intended. 'New' script designs are extremely rare
and occur under special -- and very predictable -- circumstances. There
is no such thing as a "proto-typic" script; there must be a script class
for a font to mutate from."

----------------------------------

I haven't had time to look into her assertion that SIN and SHIN are
glyphically differentiated in one manuscript (her serech.jpg image is of
too low resolution to check this out), but her verbal descriptions of the
differences strike me as the sorts of glyphic variations one expects as
normal in any author's handwriting.


Respectfully,

Dean A. Snyder
Scholarly Technology Specialist
Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi






From - Mon Dec 29 06:24:49 2003
X-UIDL: 6e0bcb176734e292e5f8d547ea790bbf
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:23:15 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AayIc-0005id-62
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:23:14 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEJN813995;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:19:28 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:19:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBTEIn813989
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:19:12 -0500
Received: (qmail 26133 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2003 14:18:16 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 29 Dec 2003 14:18:16 -0000
Message-ID: <3FF037A6.8070003@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:18:14 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
CC: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org> <3FEF8647.1090207@kli.org> <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1065
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 12/29/03 08:45, Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 28/12/2003 17:41, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>> It's awfully hard to prove a negative, Peter.  I'm surprised to hear 
>> you assert with such certainty... well, more accurately, I'm 
>> surprised to hear you *question* with such certainty the existence of 
>> *someone* out there who just possibly might see things differently.
>>
> "*question* with such certainty" sounds like an oxymoron to me. I 
> claim no certainty, I am just asking questions. It is Michael who 
> claims certainty, that there are such people. I question his 
> certainty, unless his "someone" is just himself. 

"question with certainty" is, indeed, an oxymoron.  Which is sort of the 
point.  That *something*, *somewhere* exists with practically any 
reasonable property is almost a foregone conclusion: there are lots of 
weird people in the world (including those of us who argue about alphabets).

What I mean is, even absent any evidence, Michael is presuming existence 
of some users who would do things a certain way, and it's not THAT 
unreasonable a way (or else Michael and others (and there *are* others, 
I've seen a few posts here) wouldn't be thinking so).  Considering that 
the world is full of a lot of diverse people, I'd think that's a safer 
assumption than that such a community does *not* exist.  I'm not trying 
to say the burden of proof is on or not on one side or another 
(arguments that involve "well, *I* don't have to prove anything; the 
burden of proof is on *you*" are tiresome and misleading), just that I'm 
surprised at your opposition to the very notion that there's someone out 
there who does it differently, and the consequent apparent presumption 
that you know how *everyone* does this kind of thing.

>> ...
>> Anyway, as we've seen, it's no skin off your nose if other 
>> (imaginary) people choose to use other encodings.
>> ...
>
>
>
> Well, to avoid multiplying postings, I will quote and reply to your 
> (Mark's) other posting here: 

That helps; this thread is messy enough already.

>> Case 1: Nobody wants Phoenician.
>>
>> OK!  So the only loss in encoding it is the loss of codepoints, ... 
>> encoding these extra scripts doesn't affect Peter, or other non-users 
>> of Phoenician, at all.
>
>
>
> It does, because it implies a presumption that those of us, that is 
> everyone, who represent Phoenician text with codes from the Hebrew 
> block are not complying with Unicode, and it leads to a continuing 
> tension between a very laudable desire to follow the standard (one 
> which we should surely be encouraging!) and the practical preference 
> for the more simple solution of using Hebrew script. It also implies a 
> recommendation to implementers to use precious resources to support 
> this Phoenician script when it is neither needed not wanted, and not 
> to provide support for the Phoenician etc language written in Hebrew 
> script. It is also a great waste of everyone's time, especially that 
> of Michael who seems irreplaceable, to propose and standardise an 
> unwanted script.
>
> To put it bluntly, if a new Phoenician script is encoded I will be 
> forced into the position of recommending Semiticists to ignore what 
> Unicode has just done - which will make it very hard for me to 
> persuade them to use Unicode for Hebrew either, instead they will 
> stick to their visual order legacy encodings with continuing confusion 
> for everyone. 

I already pointed out that the Script Police will not come and cart you 
away for daring to represent Phoenician in Hebrew script.  Unicode is 
not about trying to make rules for how you *must* do things, but to 
enable you to do the things you want to do (which isn't to say that it's 
all right to make a non-compliant rendering engine or something, but how 
to study Semitic languages is not something specified by the Unicode 
Standard, no matter how many alphabets it encodes).  The *simple* 
solution is to stick with Michigan-Claremont encoding, which worked well 
so far and is even 7-bit clean.  But that's not good enough, for reasons 
I think we can all agree on.  But Unicode isn't trying to *restrict* 
people's choices, to make sure that they use the Right Way.  That's what 
you're advocating: make sure there's only one choice, so people can't 
misuse it.

I think there are very reasonable ways to present to Semiticists that 
they carry on using Hebrew script just as they always have, despite 
Unicode's encoding of other things, without making it sound like "just 
ignore Unicode."  The Phoenician script to be encoded is simply not the 
correct script for their branch of scholarship.  Just like there have 
been typefaces for Phoenician all along (or at least there has been the 
potential for making such typefaces all along) and nobody felt 
"non-compliant" by working with the convenient and readable fiction of 
Hebrew letters, why should it be any different now?  It isn't like the 
Semiticists don't *know* that they're using the "wrong" lettershapes 
now.  Think of it that way: would they have used Phoenician-style 
typefaces if they could?  Would the existence of such typefaces (and 
they do exist) have weakened their commitment to the technology of 
moveable type?

As for "waste of resources," that tends to be a red herring.  
Considering the amount of effort expended on this discussion (and I 
won't go so far as to say "wasted," since despite the level of 
argumentation, there has still been a very high light:heat ratio in this 
thread), I don't know that even finishing up the coding of Phoenician 
would measure up.  And it's Michael's time to waste.  Saying "We don't 
want you working on *this*, even though you want to.  Your time is 
important, and we choose to spend it on *that*" sounds like staking a 
claim on his time, that he may not use it except as others think it 
should be used.  If waste of time or resources is the only claim against 
coding Phoenician (and I think it is, since there is nothing else to 
lose because of it), that doesn't sound sufficient.

>> Case 2: There are people who want Phoenician
>>
>> Well, then, we'd better encode it for them!
>
>
> Agreed. If we find such people, and they really will use Phoenician in 
> plain text, I have no problem in encoding it for them. But, as I said 
> before, new character proposals, and so a fortiori new script 
> proposals, need to be justified by actual usage and user requirements, 
> not just by Michael's unsupported assertions that there is such a user 
> community. 

We'll have to look at the proposals, then, where he promises to provide 
evidence.  But if he is not to be permitted to make such proposals, lest 
he waste his valuable talents, he's in a Catch-22.

~mark





From - Mon Dec 29 06:24:50 2003
X-UIDL: a03ef0f336c79b7064fddca5b54cf1b1
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:23:20 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AayIe-0005ix-DW
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:23:16 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEId813988;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:18:44 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:18:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEI3813946
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:18:24 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id D8CFD40D6EB; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:17:20 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF0377A.602@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 06:17:30 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <200312280213.hBS2D3I22381@unicode.org> <3FEF5B77.9040006@qaya.org> <p0602040fbc1525672595@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p0602040fbc1525672595@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1064
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBTEId813988
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 18:02, Michael Everson wrote:

> Here is some text from a Semiticist historian of writing which may=20
> help to explain the approach which we have taken with regard to the=20
> parsing of the ancient scripts in question vis =E0 vis the Roadmaps.
>
> ...
>
> [NOTA BENE: In my view, Naveh is using the term "script" with Greek,=20
> Cyrillic, Latin, Arabic, Jewish, and Hebrew in the same way that the=20
> Unicode Standard and the Roadmaps do.]
> ...

Thank you, Michael. This is very interesting. But Naveh's use of=20
"script" is not consistent, or at least he uses the word in a way that=20
allows him to describe Phoenician and palaeo-Hebrew sometimes as one=20
script, sometimes as two. In some places he supports making more=20
distinctions than you want to e.g. between Phoenician and=20
(palaeo-)Hebrew. But I note that the discussion is almost entirely of=20
glyph shapes, not of the systematic features of writing systems. A=20
similar discussion could be made of the history of various glyph shapes=20
etc within the Latin alphabet, and might equally describe italic, black=20
letter, S=FCtterlin etc as different scripts, although also as part of a=20
more generic Latin script.

--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 06:34:48 2003
X-UIDL: 77ca01fd5434e1499cb14cdaa5ba0227
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:27:20 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AayMZ-0005uR-CD
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:27:19 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEOc814338;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:24:38 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:24:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEOb814332
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:24:37 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id CBEDE4153EE; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:24:24 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF03922.2090408@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 06:24:34 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Karljurgen Feuerherm <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <sfef5264.058@wlu.ca>
In-Reply-To: <sfef5264.058@wlu.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1067
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 18:59, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:

>I suppose I'm pedantic in my posts, however...
>
>Phoenician spelling checkers aren't possible just now: there are too many words whose identity is unknown, and which consequently we can't be sure are spelled correctly...
>
>  
>
Understood! Spelling checkers aren't much use anyway for consonantal 
Semitic scripts (i.e. the 22 or so letter kind, not cuneiform) because 
almost every string at least of up to 4 or 5 letters is a valid word, 
and few words are longer than that. (For the same reason the supposed 
"Bible code" secret messages are probably chance occurrences.)

But I was thinking more in principle. If software companies are ever to 
provide support for Phoenician etc, it needs to work with the encoding 
which scholars and others actually use, rather than with something which 
has been encoded with little regard for user requirements.


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 06:54:49 2003
X-UIDL: bfdeadbce75e7d109848804843a917fc
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:48:27 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aaygz-0006k8-Qr
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:48:25 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEgX814750;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:42:33 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:42:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEgX814744
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:42:33 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 662CE40D4B7; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:42:22 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF03D57.9050700@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 06:42:31 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
Cc: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org> <3FEF8647.1090207@kli.org> <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org> <3FF037A6.8070003@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FF037A6.8070003@kli.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1070
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 29/12/2003 06:18, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> ...
>
>> Agreed. If we find such people, and they really will use Phoenician 
>> in plain text, I have no problem in encoding it for them. But, as I 
>> said before, new character proposals, and so a fortiori new script 
>> proposals, need to be justified by actual usage and user 
>> requirements, not just by Michael's unsupported assertions that there 
>> is such a user community. 
>
>
> We'll have to look at the proposals, then, where he promises to 
> provide evidence.  But if he is not to be permitted to make such 
> proposals, lest he waste his valuable talents, he's in a Catch-22.
>
If he has evidence to present, I have no objection to him presenting it 
in a proposal. I am just cautioning him, and others, against presuming 
that there will be a lot of people who will want to use a separately 
encoded Phoenician script. If he finds such people, fine, let the 
proposal go ahead. If he can't find them, then he is wasting his time in 
writing a proposal, which is his own matter; and he is wasting others' 
time, but not very much of it I trust, as I expect that a proposal 
without evidence that anyone wants to use the script will be thrown out 
quickly, or at least ignored.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 06:54:50 2003
X-UIDL: 46b2cc49f0be00f39ec8ed4d395fc23f
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:48:54 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AayhN-0006ka-At
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:48:49 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEee814688;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:40:40 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:40:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jhuml3.jhu.edu (jhuml3.jhu.edu [128.220.2.66])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTEed814682
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:40:39 -0500
Received: from jhuml3.jhu.edu (jhuml3.jhu.edu [128.220.2.66])
 by jhuml3.jhu.edu (PMDF V6.2-X17 #30840)
 with SMTP id <0HQN006A5VBPE8@jhuml3.jhu.edu> for hebrew@unicode.org; Mon,
 29 Dec 2003 09:40:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jhuml3.jhu.edu ([128.220.2.66])
 by jhuml3.jhu.edu (SAVSMTP 3.1.0.29) with SMTP id M2003122909403620175 for
 <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:40:36 -0500
Received: from [128.220.220.159] (moon.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.220.159])
 by jhuml3.jhu.edu (PMDF V6.2-X17 #30840)
 with ESMTP id <0HQN009CYVFN8K@jhuml3.jhu.edu> for hebrew@unicode.org; Mon,
 29 Dec 2003 09:40:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:41:07 -0500
From: Dean Snyder <dean.snyder@jhu.edu>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
In-reply-to: <p0602040fbc1525672595@[192.168.0.2]>
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Message-id: <20031229144108.3393@smtp.jhu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail 4.2 us Carbon <http://www.ctmdev.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <p0602040fbc1525672595@[192.168.0.2]>
X-archive-position: 1069
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: dean.snyder@jhu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael Everson wrote at 2:02 AM on Monday, December 29, 2003:

>[NOTA BENE: In my view, Naveh is using the term 
>"script" with Greek, Cyrillic, Latin, Arabic, 
>Jewish, and Hebrew in the same way that the 
>Unicode Standard and the Roadmaps do.]

But not consistently! And, at times, not in accordance with your usage!

Naveh, "All the letters of the Semitic script stand for consonants."

And this terminological confusion has been repeated in numerous emails in
these threads. "Script" has been used in both very broad and very narrow,
even paleographical, ways.


Respectfully,

Dean A. Snyder
Scholarly Technology Specialist
Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi






From - Mon Dec 29 07:23:23 2003
X-UIDL: d37f496f56aa180ca6225761c932a2b4
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:23:06 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AazES-00083W-Po
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:23:00 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTFJV824527;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:19:36 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:19:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80804.mail.yahoo.com (web80804.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.170.99])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBTFJ5824395
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:19:16 -0500
Message-ID: <20031229151835.99201.qmail@web80804.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [63.164.145.85] by web80804.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:18:35 PST
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:18:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Elaine Keown <elaine_keown@yahoo.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org, unicode@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <3FF03922.2090408@qaya.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 1071
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: elaine_keown@yahoo.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

         Elaine Keown
         still in Texas

Hi,

The core issue in all this is how to apply the Unicode
character/glyph model to an old 22-letter alphabet
with (most likely) a 3,700 year history.  

Personalities and sniping aside, that is the central
issue.  

And I suspect that this 22-letter alphabet should be
greatly unified, but maybe not 100%.  

In addition, since we are actually talking about
computers, about optimal software, I would have hoped
that the real model used for script dis-unification
and unification would be technical, not historical.  

I would have thought that's obvious----no version of a
script's history should be the primary evidence for
making a technical decision.  

And, with Semitics, versions of script history change
through time and the perception of the scholar.  We
keep digging up new evidence, and everything shifts
when we do that....

--- Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org> wrote:
> If software companies are ever to provide support
for > Phoenician etc, it needs to work with the
encoding 
> which scholars and others actually use

This is a practical point, but I think the other
problem is that software companies may assume that the
Unicode Technical Committee, because of its prestige,
actually contains Semitists in its membership and is
(as it frequently professes) in steady contact with
the user communities.  

Neither of those are true.  The UTC has no Semitists,
and has steadily ignored them---today is certainly the
same story.  

I will repeat, this time with more exact references,
what I wrote a while back:

In the late 1980s, Alan Groves of Westminster
Theological Seminary, argued with early Unicoders
about how to represent Hebrew.  At that point Prof.
Groves was one of the world's most prominent
computational Hebraists--he has since gone on to do
hermeneutics....

The early Unicoders ignored him and insulted him.  

And the diacritics that Unicode screwed up, in the
canonical classes, are those he knew about.  

Are you planning to ignore us again and make another
serious mistake?  

Maybe this time someone will be watching you, you
won't make your errors in darkness--Elaine Keown

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/




From - Mon Dec 29 07:44:48 2003
X-UIDL: 09ed89dbd5747752557a88697c5fe7c5
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:37:19 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AazSH-0008TF-Rf
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:37:17 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTFYb829140;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:34:37 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:34:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts24.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.187])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTFYb829128
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:34:37 -0500
Received: from smrtytrek.com ([204.101.137.194])
          by tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP
          id <20031229153428.WPV13528.tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net@smrtytrek.com>
          for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:34:28 -0500
Message-ID: <3FF04916.7000900@smrtytrek.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:32:38 -0500
From: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030916
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org> <3FEF8647.1090207@kli.org> <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1072
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: jallan@smrtytrek.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBTFYb829140
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Peter Kirk wrote citing and answering Mark E. Shoulson:

>> Case 1: Nobody wants Phoenician.
>>
>> OK!  So the only loss in encoding it is the loss of codepoints, ...=20
>> encoding these extra scripts doesn't affect Peter, or other non-users=20
>> of Phoenician, at all.
>
This misstates the question in my opinion.

Certainly some people want Phoenician. But people also want the=20
Blackletter scripts of Latin and Italic script and Uncial scripts and=20
within Hebrew they want the Rashi script and Ari script and so on.

This would better be phrased as:

Case 1: Nobody wants Phoenician, Hebrew, Samaritan and most Aramaic=20
scripts to be separately encoded in Unicode.=20

> It does, because it implies a presumption that those of us, that is=20
> everyone, who represent Phoenician text with codes from the Hebrew=20
> block are not complying with Unicode, and it leads to a continuing=20
> tension between a very laudable desire to follow the standard (one=20
> which we should surely be encouraging!) and the practical preference=20
> for the more simple solution of using Hebrew script. It also implies a=20
> recommendation to implementers to use precious resources to support=20
> this Phoenician script when it is neither needed not wanted, and not=20
> to provide support for the Phoenician etc language written in Hebrew=20
> script. It is also a great waste of everyone's time, especially that=20
> of Michael who seems irreplaceable, to propose and standardise an=20
> unwanted script.

I think this partly misstates.

Unifying Phoenician and Hebrew and Aramaic scripts in no way argues=20
against support for proper presentation of those scripts any more than=20
Fraktur being unified with other Latin scripts/styles argues against=20
font makers providing full and complete support for Fraktur for those=20
who want it (and for italic for those who want it and for greeting card=20
cursive scripts for those who want them and for S=C3=BCtterlin for those =
who=20
want it).

Similarly the single encoding of very different Runic scripts into a=20
single encoding does not at all suggest that font makers should not=20
provide support for individual Runic scripts for those who want it.

Han unification does not mean the Chinese forms that appear in the=20
Unicode manual take priority and font makers should not support Japanese=20
forms.

I realize this is not what you meant to imply, Peter, but it is very=20
important to continually make clear that unified encoding of any of=20
these scripts should not at all discourage support for the different=20
scripts and styles.

One does not want users of Samaritan to feel (as many Japanese felt)=20
that if the Samaritan script is not encoded distinctively and separately=20
that Samaritan is not really encoded at all. This kind of feeling seems=20
to be what Michael Everson is expressing.

If northwest Semitic unification is valid, it is valid because all=20
scripts are considered equal in a sense. If northwest Semitic=20
unification is accepted totally or in part by the Unicode consortium,=20
then a strong statement would be required that the word "Hebrew" in the=20
names of the northwest Semitic encoding derive from legacy practice that=20
unfortunately cannot be changed, but that this should not imply that=20
using these code points for  modern Hebrew is in any way more correct=20
than using them to display Phoenician, paleo-Hebrew,  Samaritan or one=20
of the Aramaic scripts.

A chart indicating sample "default" glyphs from various northwest=20
Semitic scripts should also be included in the Unicode standard.

> To put it bluntly, if a new Phoenician script is encoded I will be=20
> forced into the position of recommending Semiticists to ignore what=20
> Unicode has just done - which will make it very hard for me to=20
> persuade them to use Unicode for Hebrew either, instead they will=20
> stick to their visual order legacy encodings with continuing confusion=20
> for everyone.

Yes. Encoding Phoenician separately would break my intuitive feel of=20
what constitutes a character and what constitutes a glyph in respect to=20
the northwest Semitic abjad.

>>
>> Case 2: There are people who want Phoenician
>>
>> Well, then, we'd better encode it for them!
>
>
>
> Agreed. If we find such people, and they really will use Phoenician in=20
> plain text, I have no problem in encoding it for them. But, as I said=20
> before, new character proposals, and so a fortiori new script=20
> proposals, need to be justified by actual usage and user requirements,=20
> not just by Michael's unsupported assertions that there is such a user=20
> community.

There is certainly users. Whether there is a "user community" is=20
dubious. The words "plain text" are important here.

I suspect there is a larger user community who wants Japanese kanzi to=20
be encoded distinctly than there are persons who care one way or the=20
other about Phoenician.

But ignoring numbers, are there users who *need* to distinguish=20
Phoenician in "plain text" more than there are users who need to=20
distinguish Uncial script from Blackletter script from Roman script from=20
Italic script in plain text? More than Rashi script from Ari Script from=20
cursive Hebrew in plain text? More than Japanese from Chinese from=20
Korean in plain text? More than early Corinthian epigraphic Greek=20
inscriptions from modern Greek in plain text? More than early Germanic=20
futhark from staveless runes in plain text?

There are places and times where it would be useful to distinguish any=20
of these in plain text. But more often it is useful not to distinguish=20
them because of ease in searching, because for all of these, despite=20
differences in a appearance, the characters fundamentally are felt to be=20
the same characters.

The differences in shape between the extremes of the 22-letter northwest=20
Semitic abjad are greater than in any of these other examples except=20
between the early Germanic futhark and staveless runes. On the other=20
hand the spread of languages in which they are *normally* used is very=20
small and all these languages are very closely related within northwest=20
Semitic and share many of the same words (especially when spelled=20
without vowel pointing). They are used for the same text. It is hard to=20
see the usefulness in four different Unicode encodings for the abjad=20
encoding almost identical texts of the law of Moses.

Unicode purportedly mostly encodes characters not glyphs.

To many of us who can read somewhat in the Semitic languages, the glyphs=20
in these different scripts represent the identical characters despite=20
the differences in appearance.

Accordingly Phoenician, Samaritan and Aramaic scripts are encoded in=20
Unicode though this is not explicitly stated.  Some lines in the=20
standard recognizing this and a chart giving some variant forms would be=20
all that is necessary to make this explicit.

A few new characters and punctuation symbols might need to be added, for=20
example an explicit Phoenician paleo-Hebrew sin/shin for DSS=20
representation. But that's no more an argument against unification than=20
some of the letter-like symbols or IPA symbols or LATIN SMALL LETTER=20
INSULAR G argue against the general unification of various Latin scripts.

I would verbally oppose any suggestion that Phoenician be encoded "as=20
Hebrew". The distinction between encoding Phoenician "as Hebrew" and=20
encoding Phoenician, modern Hebrew characters, Aramaic characters and=20
Samaritan characters as variants of the same "uniscript" for the=20
22-character northwest Semitic abjad is conceptually very important.

Jim Allan








From - Mon Dec 29 08:04:51 2003
X-UIDL: 5c6e6a2f47195bf4b2e2566b1edbd5a1
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:59:31 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Aaznm-0000uB-HI
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:59:30 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTFvd803624;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:57:39 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:57:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wlu.ca (wluw5.wlu.ca [192.54.242.118])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBTFvc803612
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:57:38 -0500
Received: from WLU-MTA by wlu.ca
	with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:57:35 -0500
Message-Id: <sff0089f.090@wlu.ca>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:57:07 -0500
From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
To: <jallan@smrtytrek.com>, <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBTFvc803612
X-archive-position: 1074
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: kfeuerherm@wlu.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBTFvd803624
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

I suppose it is a fact of life, but in my opinion, that sort of feeling i=
s misplaced. Encoding should be about encoding, efficiency, and thus non-=
duplication.

On another angle, perhaps someone could explain why it is necessary to ha=
ve Phoenician and Hebrew (for example) separately encoded as plain text, =
when they could be dealt with by mark-up of some kind, particularly as se=
arch engines these days tend to be capable of including font distinction =
in searches?

That would help me appreciate the issue a lot better.

K
Karlj=FCrgen G. Feuerherm
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies
Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3C5
(519) 884-1970 x3193
>>> Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com> 12/29/03 10:32 AM >>>

One does not want users of Samaritan to feel (as many Japanese felt)=20
that if the Samaritan script is not encoded distinctively and separately=20
that Samaritan is not really encoded at all. This kind of feeling seems=20
to be what Michael Everson is expressing.

If northwest Semitic unification is valid, it is valid because all=20
scripts are considered equal in a sense. If northwest Semitic=20
unification is accepted totally or in part by the Unicode consortium,=20
then a strong statement would be required that the word "Hebrew" in the=20
names of the northwest Semitic encoding derive from legacy practice that=20
unfortunately cannot be changed, but that this should not imply that=20
using these code points for  modern Hebrew is in any way more correct=20
than using them to display Phoenician, paleo-Hebrew,  Samaritan or one=20
of the Aramaic scripts.

A chart indicating sample "default" glyphs from various northwest=20
Semitic scripts should also be included in the Unicode standard.

> To put it bluntly, if a new Phoenician script is encoded I will be=20
> forced into the position of recommending Semiticists to ignore what=20
> Unicode has just done - which will make it very hard for me to=20
> persuade them to use Unicode for Hebrew either, instead they will=20
> stick to their visual order legacy encodings with continuing confusion=20
> for everyone.

Yes. Encoding Phoenician separately would break my intuitive feel of=20
what constitutes a character and what constitutes a glyph in respect to=20
the northwest Semitic abjad.

>>
>> Case 2: There are people who want Phoenician
>>
>> Well, then, we'd better encode it for them!
>
>
>
> Agreed. If we find such people, and they really will use Phoenician in=20
> plain text, I have no problem in encoding it for them. But, as I said=20
> before, new character proposals, and so a fortiori new script=20
> proposals, need to be justified by actual usage and user requirements,=20
> not just by Michael's unsupported assertions that there is such a user=20
> community.

There is certainly users. Whether there is a "user community" is=20
dubious. The words "plain text" are important here.

I suspect there is a larger user community who wants Japanese kanzi to=20
be encoded distinctly than there are persons who care one way or the=20
other about Phoenician.

But ignoring numbers, are there users who *need* to distinguish=20
Phoenician in "plain text" more than there are users who need to=20
distinguish Uncial script from Blackletter script from Roman script from=20
Italic script in plain text? More than Rashi script from Ari Script from=20
cursive Hebrew in plain text? More than Japanese from Chinese from=20
Korean in plain text? More than early Corinthian epigraphic Greek=20
inscriptions from modern Greek in plain text? More than early Germanic=20
futhark from staveless runes in plain text?

There are places and times where it would be useful to distinguish any=20
of these in plain text. But more often it is useful not to distinguish=20
them because of ease in searching, because for all of these, despite=20
differences in a appearance, the characters fundamentally are felt to be=20
the same characters.

The differences in shape between the extremes of the 22-letter northwest=20
Semitic abjad are greater than in any of these other examples except=20
between the early Germanic futhark and staveless runes. On the other=20
hand the spread of languages in which they are *normally* used is very=20
small and all these languages are very closely related within northwest=20
Semitic and share many of the same words (especially when spelled=20
without vowel pointing). They are used for the same text. It is hard to=20
see the usefulness in four different Unicode encodings for the abjad=20
encoding almost identical texts of the law of Moses.

Unicode purportedly mostly encodes characters not glyphs.

To many of us who can read somewhat in the Semitic languages, the glyphs=20
in these different scripts represent the identical characters despite=20
the differences in appearance.

Accordingly Phoenician, Samaritan and Aramaic scripts are encoded in=20
Unicode though this is not explicitly stated.  Some lines in the=20
standard recognizing this and a chart giving some variant forms would be=20
all that is necessary to make this explicit.

A few new characters and punctuation symbols might need to be added, for=20
example an explicit Phoenician paleo-Hebrew sin/shin for DSS=20
representation. But that's no more an argument against unification than=20
some of the letter-like symbols or IPA symbols or LATIN SMALL LETTER=20
INSULAR G argue against the general unification of various Latin scripts.

I would verbally oppose any suggestion that Phoenician be encoded "as=20
Hebrew". The distinction between encoding Phoenician "as Hebrew" and=20
encoding Phoenician, modern Hebrew characters, Aramaic characters and=20
Samaritan characters as variants of the same "uniscript" for the=20
22-character northwest Semitic abjad is conceptually very important.

Jim Allan










From - Mon Dec 29 11:24:48 2003
X-UIDL: d7312687956e34b0383128f5dab8d824
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:16:34 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab2sS-00077G-1s
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:16:32 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTJDf801439;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:13:41 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:13:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury.ccil.org (mercury.ccil.org [192.190.237.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTJDe801427
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:13:40 -0500
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1Ab2pO-00022f-00; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:13:22 -0500
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:13:22 -0500
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Message-ID: <20031229191322.GA5210@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <200312280213.hBS2D3I22381@unicode.org> <3FEF5B77.9040006@qaya.org> <p0602040fbc1525672595@[192.168.0.2]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <p0602040fbc1525672595@[192.168.0.2]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1078
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBTJDf801439
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael Everson scripsit:

> Here is some text from a Semiticist historian of=20
> writing which may help to explain the approach=20
> which we have taken with regard to the parsing of=20
> the ancient scripts in question vis =E0 vis the=20
> Roadmaps.

Excellent stuff.

> The Proto-Canaanite script, however, continued to=20
> flourish, and its direct offshoot, the Phoenician=20
> script, existed until the first centuries A.D.=20

So Proto-Canaanite =3D Phoenician.

> Aramaic=20
> script was widespread throughout the ancient=20
> East; it was adopted by the Jews, who developed=20
> the Jewish (=3D square Hebrew) script for Aramaic=20
> and Hebrew texts, even though the latter is a=20
> Canaanite tongue.=20

So Aramaic > Jewish =3D Square Hebrew =3D Unicode Hebrew.

> In order to avoid potentially confusing=20
> terminology such as "ancient Hebrew" or=20
> "Phoenician-Hebrew", on the one hand, and "square=20
> Hebrew" on the other, we shall use "Hebrew" to=20
> denote the script which was commonly used by the=20
> Hebrews in both Israel and Judah in the First=20
> Temple period, and which was later confined to=20
> limited Jewish circles (although accepted by the=20
> Samaritans, who still use it today).=20

So Phoenician =3D Palaeo-Hebrew =3D Samaritan.


--=20
"And it was said that ever after, if any                John Cowan
man looked in that Stone, unless he had a               jcowan@reutershea=
lth.com
great strength of will to turn it to other              www.ccil.org/~cow=
an
purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering           www.reutershealth=
.com
in flame."   --"The Pyre of Denethor"




From - Mon Dec 29 12:04:49 2003
X-UIDL: 2b08457f598f262fb3c2ff1bc530f51b
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:03:22 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab3bk-0000Lo-CB
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:03:20 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTK0q816698;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:00:53 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:00:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTK0q816692
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:00:52 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 36F71415409; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:00:36 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF087F1.8060001@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:00:49 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <200312280213.hBS2D3I22381@unicode.org> <3FEF5B77.9040006@qaya.org> <p0602040fbc1525672595@[192.168.0.2]> <20031229191322.GA5210@mercury.ccil.org>
In-Reply-To: <20031229191322.GA5210@mercury.ccil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1079
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBTK0q816698
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 29/12/2003 11:13, John Cowan wrote:

>Michael Everson scripsit:
>
> =20
>
>>Here is some text from a Semiticist historian of=20
>>writing which may help to explain the approach=20
>>which we have taken with regard to the parsing of=20
>>the ancient scripts in question vis =E0 vis the=20
>>Roadmaps.
>>   =20
>>
>
>Excellent stuff.
>
> =20
>
>>The Proto-Canaanite script, however, continued to=20
>>flourish, and its direct offshoot, the Phoenician=20
>>script, existed until the first centuries A.D.=20
>>   =20
>>
>
>So Proto-Canaanite =3D Phoenician.
>
> =20
>
Maybe. Or, since proto-Canaanite is the mother of Phoenician, perhaps it=20
needs to be encoded as a separate script (although there are only a=20
handful of debatable characters surviving, no continuous text) for use=20
in a separate first column of a table in "The Children's History of the=20
Alphabet".

;-)

>>Aramaic=20
>>script was widespread throughout the ancient=20
>>East; it was adopted by the Jews, who developed=20
>>the Jewish (=3D square Hebrew) script for Aramaic=20
>>and Hebrew texts, even though the latter is a=20
>>Canaanite tongue.=20
>>   =20
>>
>
>So Aramaic > Jewish =3D Square Hebrew =3D Unicode Hebrew.
>
> =20
>
Well, "Jewish" was originally one style of Aramaic and was (and is=20
still) used for Aramaic texts, so the first one should be =3D not >. Note=
=20
"adopted" with O, not "adapted" with A.

>>In order to avoid potentially confusing=20
>>terminology such as "ancient Hebrew" or=20
>>"Phoenician-Hebrew", on the one hand, and "square=20
>>Hebrew" on the other, we shall use "Hebrew" to=20
>>denote the script which was commonly used by the=20
>>Hebrews in both Israel and Judah in the First=20
>>Temple period, and which was later confined to=20
>>limited Jewish circles (although accepted by the=20
>>Samaritans, who still use it today).=20
>>   =20
>>
>
>So Phoenician =3D Palaeo-Hebrew =3D Samaritan.
>
> =20
>
Indeed.

Note that these equations tell us nothing about the equality or=20
otherwise of Phoenician and Unicode Hebrew.

--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 13:04:48 2003
X-UIDL: 1b60575e7c0f3f777d892559019494d5
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:57:01 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab4Re-0001or-8C
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:56:58 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTKmd831927;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:48:44 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:48:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury.ccil.org (mercury.ccil.org [192.190.237.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTKmO831861
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:48:34 -0500
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1Ab4Iq-0004x4-00; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:47:52 -0500
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:47:52 -0500
To: Karljurgen Feuerherm <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Message-ID: <20031229204752.GE5210@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <sff0089f.090@wlu.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <sff0089f.090@wlu.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1080
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Karljurgen Feuerherm scripsit:

> On another angle, perhaps someone could explain why it is necessary
> to have Phoenician and Hebrew (for example) separately encoded as
> plain text, when they could be dealt with by mark-up of some kind,
> particularly as search engines these days tend to be capable of
> including font distinction in searches?

Well, if we unify Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew/Samaritan, then I think
there is enough contrastive use to keep this separately encoded from
Hebrew, especially since Palaeo-Hebrew is still in marginal use in
modern Israel.

-- 
If you have ever wondered if you are in hell,         John Cowan
it has been said, then you are on a well-traveled     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
road of spiritual inquiry.  If you are absolutely   http://www.reutershealth.com
sure you are in hell, however, then you must be         jcowan@reutershealth.com
on the Cross Bronx Expressway.          --Alan Feur, NYTimes, 2002-09-20




From - Mon Dec 29 13:04:49 2003
X-UIDL: 20bd059c51a1302b9f10fe124941e306
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:59:45 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab4UG-0001uf-Pq
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:59:40 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTKsD801733;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:54:14 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:54:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury.ccil.org (mercury.ccil.org [192.190.237.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTKsA801713
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:54:11 -0500
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1Ab4Oe-0005NM-00; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:53:52 -0500
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:53:52 -0500
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Message-ID: <20031229205352.GG5210@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <p06020417bc15312de7ed@[192.168.0.2]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <p06020417bc15312de7ed@[192.168.0.2]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1081
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael Everson scripsit:

> Samaritan seems to have features which are unique 
> and unknown in Phoenician, in addition to the 
> glyph shape differences, which makes it worth 
> separate encoding.

Modern Latin script likewise, but it is not separately
encoded.

> Transliteration of Samaritan-encoded text to 
> Hebrew-encoded text would be pretty 
> straightforward. Except that at least some 
> Samaritan text uses ARABIC vowel signs to point 
> the vocalization, so unless that's OK for you in 
> Hebrew you're going to have to transliterate 
> anyway. And since Samaritan has no final 
> consonants as Hebrew does, you'll STILL have to 
> transliterate, even for texts which are otherwise 
> identical.

This raises a question: when transliterating from Phoenician or
what have you, are the Hebrew conventions on final consonants
respected or ignored?

-- 
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com  jcowan@reutershealth.com
We want more school houses and less jails; more books and less arsenals;
more learning and less vice; more constant work and less crime; more
leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of
the opportunities to cultivate our better natures.  --Samuel Gompers




From - Mon Dec 29 13:24:48 2003
X-UIDL: 0f3aef10084cfe6233025668899fe703
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:15:17 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab4jK-0002Ip-09
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:15:14 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTLAg806671;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:10:42 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:10:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jhuml4.jhu.edu (jhuml4.jhu.edu [128.220.2.67])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTLAg806665
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:10:42 -0500
Received: from jhuml4.jhu.edu (jhuml4.jhu.edu [128.220.2.67])
 by jhuml4.jhu.edu (PMDF V6.2-X17 #30840)
 with SMTP id <0HQO00MBLDFLJS@jhuml4.jhu.edu> for hebrew@unicode.org; Mon,
 29 Dec 2003 16:10:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jhuml4.jhu.edu ([128.220.2.67])
 by jhuml4.jhu.edu (SAVSMTP 3.1.0.29) with SMTP id M2003122916104000643 for
 <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:10:40 -0500
Received: from [128.220.220.159] (moon.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.220.159])
 by jhuml4.jhu.edu (PMDF V6.2-X17 #30840)
 with ESMTP id <0HQO00MK6DHRJS@jhuml4.jhu.edu> for hebrew@unicode.org; Mon,
 29 Dec 2003 16:10:39 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:11:12 -0500
From: Dean Snyder <dean.snyder@jhu.edu>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
In-reply-to: <20031229205352.GG5210@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Message-id: <20031229211112.28818@smtp.jhu.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: CTM PowerMail 4.2 us Carbon <http://www.ctmdev.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <20031229205352.GG5210@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1082
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: dean.snyder@jhu.edu
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

John Cowan wrote at 3:53 PM on Monday, December 29, 2003:

>This raises a question: when transliterating from Phoenician or
>what have you, are the Hebrew conventions on final consonants
>respected or ignored?

Ignored.


Respectfully,

Dean A. Snyder
Scholarly Technology Specialist
Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi






From - Mon Dec 29 14:14:49 2003
X-UIDL: b08778735feed1f8d905b9cbaaaed287
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:13:17 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab5dU-0003sd-0d
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:13:16 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTM7a824020;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:07:36 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:07:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wlu.ca (wluw5.wlu.ca [192.54.242.118])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBTM7Z824008
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:07:35 -0500
Received: from WLU-MTA by wlu.ca
	with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:07:33 -0500
Message-Id: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:07:22 -0500
From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBTM7Z824008
X-archive-position: 1083
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: kfeuerherm@wlu.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBTM7a824020
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

That depends on what you mean, actually.

If you transliterate to Latin, then of course there is no convention to w=
orry about.

If you transliterate to Square Hebrew, then you have a choice. People can=
 do it both ways, there isn't any rule.

K

Karlj=FCrgen G. Feuerherm
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies
Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3C5
(519) 884-1970 x3193
>>> Dean Snyder <dean.snyder@jhu.edu> 12/29/03 4:11 PM >>>
John Cowan wrote at 3:53 PM on Monday, December 29, 2003:

>This raises a question: when transliterating from Phoenician or
>what have you, are the Hebrew conventions on final consonants
>respected or ignored?

Ignored.


Respectfully,

Dean A. Snyder
Scholarly Technology Specialist
Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi








From - Mon Dec 29 14:24:48 2003
X-UIDL: f64dfb0ddba489fdbdad2598c1634724
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:23:00 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab5mq-00044H-2O
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:22:56 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTMKN828571;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:20:23 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:20:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTMKC828517
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:20:23 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034974613@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:19:36 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca>
References: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:12:24 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1084
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 17:07 -0500 2003-12-29, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:
>That depends on what you mean, actually.
>
>If you transliterate to Latin, then of course there is no convention 
>to worry about.
>
>If you transliterate to Square Hebrew, then you have a choice. 
>People can do it both ways, there isn't any rule.

Either way you are transliterating from Phoenician into a different script.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Mon Dec 29 14:34:48 2003
X-UIDL: 9ec155fc827afdd0f8d7efd8df311819
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:25:52 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab5pe-00047J-1E
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:25:50 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTMMS829282;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:22:28 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:22:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTMMS829276
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:22:28 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034974730@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:22:21 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p0602040abc165816a7a8@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org>
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]>
 <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org>
 <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org>
 <3FEF8647.1090207@kli.org> <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:22:04 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1085
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 05:45 -0800 2003-12-29, Peter Kirk wrote:

>[Encoding Phoenician script separately from Hebrew] implies a 
>presumption that those of us, that is everyone, who represent 
>Phoenician text with codes from the Hebrew block are not complying 
>with Unicode,

No it absolutely does NOT.

>and it leads to a continuing tension between a very laudable desire 
>to follow the standard (one which we should surely be encouraging!) 
>and the practical preference for the more simple solution of using 
>Hebrew script.

Nothing prevents you from doing that.

>It also implies a recommendation to implementers to use precious 
>resources to support this Phoenician script when it is neither 
>needed not wanted, and not to provide support for the Phoenician etc 
>language written in Hebrew script.

We know that you think it is neither needed or wanted. That doesn't 
mean that it is isn't needed or wanted by people other than you.

>It is also a great waste of everyone's time, especially that of 
>Michael who seems irreplaceable, to propose and standardise an 
>unwanted script.

I wouldn't waste my time on something that was valueless.

>To put it bluntly, if a new Phoenician script is encoded I will be 
>forced into the position of recommending Semiticists to ignore what 
>Unicode has just done - which will make it very hard for me to 
>persuade them to use Unicode for Hebrew either, instead they will 
>stick to their visual order legacy encodings with continuing 
>confusion for everyone.

No you won't. The script block in the Unicode Standard will of course 
discuss the preference by some/many scholars to use the Hebrew script 
for this and other Semitic languages.

I think you're being rather reactionary here.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Mon Dec 29 15:24:48 2003
X-UIDL: b8176aa6fffb0231b774d6aaa50de985
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:18:03 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab6e6-0005v7-6O
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:17:58 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTNF1813354;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:15:01 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:15:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tomts45-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts45.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.112])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTNF1813348
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:15:01 -0500
Received: from smrtytrek.com ([204.101.137.194])
          by tomts45-srv.bellnexxia.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP
          id <20031229231458.CFHV22468.tomts45-srv.bellnexxia.net@smrtytrek.com>
          for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:14:58 -0500
Message-ID: <3FF0B490.7060104@smrtytrek.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:11:12 -0500
From: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030916
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca> <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1086
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: jallan@smrtytrek.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael Everson wrote:

> At 17:07 -0500 2003-12-29, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:
>
>> That depends on what you mean, actually.
>>
>> If you transliterate to Latin, then of course there is no convention 
>> to worry about.
>>
>> If you transliterate to Square Hebrew, then you have a choice. People 
>> can do it both ways, there isn't any rule.
>
>
> Either way you are transliterating from Phoenician into a different 
> script.

If you are representing ancient Phoenician characters by modern Hebrew 
characters then you are rendering it in a different script in one use of 
the word script. But I'm not sure one should call it transliterating in 
that case.

Representing Beowulf with modern Latin characters also renders it in a 
different script. In fact there are likely to be more changes made when 
rendering Beowulf in modern characters. The letter wynn is usually 
replaced by _w_ and some diacritics and abbreviations are usually expanded.

But rendering Phoenician characters by modern Hebrew characters retains 
the same abjad in which it was originally written in. Nothing is lost 
except style.

This will be true regardless of whether Phoenician and Hebrew are 
unified in Unicode, save that if not disunified then the value of a 
single coding is lost.

But transliterating Phoenician characters into Latin script produces 
different results depending on the transliteration system adopted 
because there is no one-to-one identity between Phoenician characters 
and Latin characters (in any of the normal transliteration systems).

As to being a different script, both Phoenician and Hebrew are variants 
of the Northwest Semitic script (which is called the North Semitic 
script at http://www.bartleby.com/65/ha/HamitoSe.html  and at 
http://www.slider.com/enc/23000/Hamito-Semitic_languages_The_Semitic_Subfamily.htm 
and at 
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=9298&tocid=0&query=aramaic&ct= 
and at 
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=119413&tocid=53648&query=alphabet&ct= 
and at http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_1998/ling001/Writinglect.html

Such articles use the term North Semitic script both for the supposed 
ancestor script of Phoenician, Hebrew and so forth and as a blanket term 
to cover all the scripts comprised within it.

Similarly "Latin script" can be used to mean the original Latin script 
as opposed to non-Latin scripts such as Etruscan and Greek scripts and 
Punic and so forth or "Latin script"  can be used as enveloping term for 
the later scripts which developed from it.

In one sense rendering characters or Phoenician form with modern Hebrew 
characters is rendering in a different script. In another sense, it is 
not. An ancient Phoenician script and a modern Hebrew script are both 
variants of the Northwest Semitic script and both use the same 
abjad/alphabet.

"Northwest Semitic" is more commonly used today than "North Semitic".

Jim Allan





From - Mon Dec 29 15:44:49 2003
X-UIDL: 1ad08919d783135e1682d619deffe902
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:44:42 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab73w-0006lz-Fq
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:44:40 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTNfh822191;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:41:43 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:41:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wlu.ca (wluw5.wlu.ca [192.54.242.118])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBTNfg822185
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:41:42 -0500
Received: from WLU-MTA by wlu.ca
	with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:41:39 -0500
Message-Id: <sff07563.070@wlu.ca>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:41:25 -0500
From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBTNfg822185
X-archive-position: 1087
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: kfeuerherm@wlu.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBTNfh822191
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Two points:

1. The main point of the response was simply to say that it isn't altoget=
her black and white where transliteration Phoenician --> Square Hebrew is=
 concerned.

2. But representing Phoenician in Square script, regardless of what one t=
hinks of it, is certainly transliteration: replacing a letter by a letter=
. In fact it is more so transliteration than most systems of transliterat=
ion from Hebrew into Latin, which are not simple 1 to 1 mapping, as you s=
ay.

K

Karlj=FCrgen G. Feuerherm
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies
Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3C5
(519) 884-1970 x3193
>>> Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com> 12/29/03 6:11 PM >>>
Michael Everson wrote:

> At 17:07 -0500 2003-12-29, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:
>
>> That depends on what you mean, actually.
>>
>> If you transliterate to Latin, then of course there is no convention=20
>> to worry about.
>>
>> If you transliterate to Square Hebrew, then you have a choice. People=20
>> can do it both ways, there isn't any rule.
>
>
> Either way you are transliterating from Phoenician into a different=20
> script.

If you are representing ancient Phoenician characters by modern Hebrew=20
characters then you are rendering it in a different script in one use of=20
the word script. But I'm not sure one should call it transliterating in=20
that case.

Representing Beowulf with modern Latin characters also renders it in a=20
different script. In fact there are likely to be more changes made when=20
rendering Beowulf in modern characters. The letter wynn is usually=20
replaced by _w_ and some diacritics and abbreviations are usually expande=
d.

But rendering Phoenician characters by modern Hebrew characters retains=20
the same abjad in which it was originally written in. Nothing is lost=20
except style.

This will be true regardless of whether Phoenician and Hebrew are=20
unified in Unicode, save that if not disunified then the value of a=20
single coding is lost.

But transliterating Phoenician characters into Latin script produces=20
different results depending on the transliteration system adopted=20
because there is no one-to-one identity between Phoenician characters=20
and Latin characters (in any of the normal transliteration systems).

As to being a different script, both Phoenician and Hebrew are variants=20
of the Northwest Semitic script (which is called the North Semitic=20
script at http://www.bartleby.com/65/ha/HamitoSe.html  and at=20
http://www.slider.com/enc/23000/Hamito-Semitic_languages_The_Semitic_Subf=
amily.htm=20
and at=20
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=3D9298&tocid=3D0&query=3Daramaic&=
ct=3D=20
and at=20
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=3D119413&tocid=3D53648&query=3Dal=
phabet&ct=3D=20
and at http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_1998/ling001/Writinglect.ht=
ml

Such articles use the term North Semitic script both for the supposed=20
ancestor script of Phoenician, Hebrew and so forth and as a blanket term=20
to cover all the scripts comprised within it.

Similarly "Latin script" can be used to mean the original Latin script=20
as opposed to non-Latin scripts such as Etruscan and Greek scripts and=20
Punic and so forth or "Latin script"  can be used as enveloping term for=20
the later scripts which developed from it.

In one sense rendering characters or Phoenician form with modern Hebrew=20
characters is rendering in a different script. In another sense, it is=20
not. An ancient Phoenician script and a modern Hebrew script are both=20
variants of the Northwest Semitic script and both use the same=20
abjad/alphabet.

"Northwest Semitic" is more commonly used today than "North Semitic".

Jim Allan







From - Mon Dec 29 16:04:49 2003
X-UIDL: f13f0c1dd211bc280b0dd860eef511c0
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:03:11 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab7Lq-0007Ey-PP
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:03:10 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTNuc826494;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:56:38 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:56:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBTNub826488
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:56:37 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0034978781@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net> for <hebrew@unicode.org>;
 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:56:36 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020400bc16684b6142@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FF0B490.7060104@smrtytrek.com>
References: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca> <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FF0B490.7060104@smrtytrek.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:56:32 +0000
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1088
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 18:11 -0500 2003-12-29, Jim Allan wrote:

>If you are representing ancient Phoenician characters by modern 
>Hebrew characters then you are rendering it in a different script in 
>one use of the word script. But I'm not sure one should call it 
>transliterating in that case.
>
>Representing Beowulf with modern Latin characters also renders it in 
>a different script. In fact there are likely to be more changes made 
>when rendering Beowulf in modern characters. The letter wynn is 
>usually replaced by _w_ and some diacritics and abbreviations are 
>usually expanded.

But by and large, apart from some of those manuscript anomolies, any 
reader of English can look at letters written in the Beowulf hand and 
read them right off the page. That can't be said for Phoenician and 
Hebrew. Or for Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli.

>But rendering Phoenician characters by modern Hebrew characters 
>retains the same abjad in which it was originally written in. 
>Nothing is lost except style.

I disagree. Fundamental legibility disunifies them, whether or not 
they have the same abjad structure. The same happens with the many 
Indic scripts.

>This will be true regardless of whether Phoenician and Hebrew are 
>unified in Unicode, save that if not disunified then the value of a 
>single coding is lost.

Nothing prevents Semiticists from continuing to write Phoenician 
texts in Hebrew script and working with them, just as nothing 
prevents people from writing Pali texts in Devanagari, Sinhala, 
Burmese, or Latin scripts.

>But transliterating Phoenician characters into Latin script produces 
>different results depending on the transliteration system adopted 
>because there is no one-to-one identity between Phoenician 
>characters and Latin characters (in any of the normal 
>transliteration systems).

So transliteration of Phoenician with Hebrew might be seen as more 
efficient then. That's fine. It's also familiar to Hebraicists. 
That's fine too.

>As to being a different script, both Phoenician and Hebrew are 
>variants of the Northwest Semitic script (which is called the North 
>Semitic script at http://www.bartleby.com/65/ha/HamitoSe.html  and 
>at 
>http://www.slider.com/enc/23000/Hamito-Semitic_languages_The_Semitic_Subfamily.htm 
>and at 
>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=9298&tocid=0&query=aramaic&ct= 
>and at 
>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=119413&tocid=53648&query=alphabet&ct= 
>and at 
>http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_1998/ling001/Writinglect.html
>
>Such articles use the term North Semitic script both for the 
>supposed ancestor script of Phoenician, Hebrew and so forth and as a 
>blanket term to cover all the scripts comprised within it.

And other sources use other terminology, and we all get stuck on 
that. Isn't that fun. So if I come up with a terminology, or rather 
use an existing one which differs from the ones you googled, then you 
can just pick at that because you're convinced your definitions are 
better. So that's not a way forward....

>Similarly "Latin script" can be used to mean the original Latin 
>script as opposed to non-Latin scripts such as Etruscan and Greek 
>scripts and Punic and so forth or "Latin script"  can be used as 
>enveloping term for the later scripts which developed from it.

I do not believe that Latin proliferated into the number of "scripts" 
that Canaanite/Northwest Semitic did. Roman wax tablets and some 
English chancery hands are pretty illegible, as is my own handwriting 
after enough Guinness. But they're not considered "scripts" in the 
same way that the Semitic ones are.

>In one sense rendering characters or Phoenician form with modern 
>Hebrew characters is rendering in a different script. In another 
>sense, it is not. An ancient Phoenician script and a modern Hebrew 
>script are both variants of the Northwest Semitic script and both 
>use the same abjad/alphabet.

You mixing things here. They descend from Canaanite/NWS and share its 
structure. So do Greek and Etruscan, very nearly. Arabic and 
Devanagari less so. Indeed Hebrew differs, in having innovated final 
forms of some consonants, and also stretching some letters to fill 
out lines.

I believe that scribes who wrote Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew 
Tetragrammatons in the midst of Aramaic/Hebrew text knew what they 
were doing. This is not font switching -- it's not like putting the 
name of the LORD in small caps. They knew that they were using a 
different alphabet, a different script. **Not** just a different hand.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Mon Dec 29 17:14:50 2003
X-UIDL: cdf4eea2539e6b95caef25cb49e1b182
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:13:51 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab8SD-000083-Ju
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:13:49 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1BK815704;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:11:20 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:11:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1BJ815698
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:11:20 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 34F6240D650; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:10:59 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF0D0B6.6060201@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:11:18 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <p06020417bc15312de7ed@[192.168.0.2]> <20031229205352.GG5210@mercury.ccil.org>
In-Reply-To: <20031229205352.GG5210@mercury.ccil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1090
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 29/12/2003 12:53, John Cowan wrote:

> ...
>
>
>This raises a question: when transliterating from Phoenician or
>what have you, are the Hebrew conventions on final consonants
>respected or ignored?
>
>  
>
Good question. In a couple of examples I have to hand, final forms  are 
used word finally according to the Hebrew script rules. Remember that it 
is only anomalous modern use for Yiddish words that stops Hebrew final 
forms being encoded as contextual variants cf. Arabic.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 17:24:50 2003
X-UIDL: 2d0d55fbd9298d2b6190232659a632ae
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:19:03 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab8XE-0000F5-JN
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:19:00 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1F5816783;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:15:05 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:15:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1F4816777
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:15:04 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 746CD40C9B1; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:14:44 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF0D197.2030407@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:15:03 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca> <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1091
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 29/12/2003 14:12, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 17:07 -0500 2003-12-29, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:
>
>> That depends on what you mean, actually.
>>
>> If you transliterate to Latin, then of course there is no convention 
>> to worry about.
>>
>> If you transliterate to Square Hebrew, then you have a choice. People 
>> can do it both ways, there isn't any rule.
>
>
> Either way you are transliterating from Phoenician into a different 
> script.


You are prejudging the issue under discussion. It has not yet been 
established that square Hebrew and Phoenician are different scripts. We 
are examining the evidence for this proposition. I had agreed to let 
this one rest until a proposal is presented, but you insist on asserting 
as fact your personal opinion on the matter, in favour of which only 
some rather weak evidence has so far been presented.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 17:24:51 2003
X-UIDL: f8f4c6d1f2f15a10bbfa84cb4d9636be
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:19:26 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab8Xb-0000Fh-AG
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:19:23 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1FW816928;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:15:33 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:15:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBU1FW816915
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:15:32 -0500
Received: (qmail 27583 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2003 01:15:28 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 30 Dec 2003 01:15:28 -0000
Message-ID: <3FF0D1B0.4090308@kli.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:15:28 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
CC: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org> <3FEF8647.1090207@kli.org> <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org> <3FF037A6.8070003@kli.org> <3FF03D57.9050700@qaya.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FF03D57.9050700@qaya.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1092
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Does this mean we can stop fussing about it online until the proposals 
are made?  I'll bite my tongue and try to swallow "last words" I'd want 
to get in; can everyone else do the same?

~mark

On 12/29/03 09:42, Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 29/12/2003 06:18, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>>> Agreed. If we find such people, and they really will use Phoenician 
>>> in plain text, I have no problem in encoding it for them. But, as I 
>>> said before, new character proposals, and so a fortiori new script 
>>> proposals, need to be justified by actual usage and user 
>>> requirements, not just by Michael's unsupported assertions that 
>>> there is such a user community. 
>>
>>
>>
>> We'll have to look at the proposals, then, where he promises to 
>> provide evidence.  But if he is not to be permitted to make such 
>> proposals, lest he waste his valuable talents, he's in a Catch-22.
>>
> If he has evidence to present, I have no objection to him presenting 
> it in a proposal. I am just cautioning him, and others, against 
> presuming that there will be a lot of people who will want to use a 
> separately encoded Phoenician script. If he finds such people, fine, 
> let the proposal go ahead. If he can't find them, then he is wasting 
> his time in writing a proposal, which is his own matter; and he is 
> wasting others' time, but not very much of it I trust, as I expect 
> that a proposal without evidence that anyone wants to use the script 
> will be thrown out quickly, or at least ignored.
>





From - Mon Dec 29 17:34:51 2003
X-UIDL: fee7b6c24ab6d31aafc139fbb31230c3
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:30:27 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab8iC-0000Tv-L2
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:30:20 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1Qb820224;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:26:37 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:26:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1QZ820202
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:26:35 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id DC4B340C9B1; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:26:11 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF0D447.7030609@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:26:31 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org> <3FEF8647.1090207@kli.org> <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org> <p0602040abc165816a7a8@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p0602040abc165816a7a8@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1093
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 29/12/2003 14:22, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 05:45 -0800 2003-12-29, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> [Encoding Phoenician script separately from Hebrew] implies a 
>> presumption that those of us, that is everyone, who represent 
>> Phoenician text with codes from the Hebrew block are not complying 
>> with Unicode,
>
>
> No it absolutely does NOT.
>
Michael, if I continue to write Hebrew with characters from the Unicode 
Latin-1 range (as many of my colleagues still insist on doing, in Word 
documents), am I complying with Unicode? (Note that I am deliberately 
avoiding the formally defined word "conform" as its definition is so 
weak.) If I write Tamil script with Devanagari characters and a 
transliterating font, am I complying with Unicode? So, in the same way, 
if a Phoenician block is defined and I continue to use Hebrew code 
points for Phoenician text, are you now saying that I am fully complying 
with Unicode?


>> and it leads to a continuing tension between a very laudable desire 
>> to follow the standard (one which we should surely be encouraging!) 
>> and the practical preference for the more simple solution of using 
>> Hebrew script.
>
>
> Nothing prevents you from doing that.
>
Nothing prevents me from telling the world that Unicode is a ridiculous 
joke, which encodes everything Michael Everson wants it to encode and 
nothing else - whether or not that is true. But is that what you and the 
UTC want me to tell them? Well, I am beginning to thing that is what you 
want.

> ...
> No you won't. The script block in the Unicode Standard will of course 
> discuss the preference by some/many scholars to use the Hebrew script 
> for this and other Semitic languages.


OK, this wouldn't be the first time that Unicode had simultaneously 
defined a block of characters and advised people not to use it, but it 
is rather laughable to plan that in advance!

>
> I think you're being rather reactionary here.


I won't tell you what I think you are being.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 17:34:51 2003
X-UIDL: 4dd4056106c2d2e2f0e5f98ea4bb03e7
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:32:51 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab8kb-0000Yn-FU
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:32:49 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1UA821238;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:30:10 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:30:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1UA821230
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:30:10 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 9051B40C98F; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:29:49 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF0D521.5030206@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:30:09 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Karljurgen Feuerherm <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <sff07563.070@wlu.ca>
In-Reply-To: <sff07563.070@wlu.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1094
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 29/12/2003 15:41, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:

>Two points:
>
>1. The main point of the response was simply to say that it isn't altogether black and white where transliteration Phoenician --> Square Hebrew is concerned.
>
>2. But representing Phoenician in Square script, regardless of what one thinks of it, is certainly transliteration: replacing a letter by a letter. In fact it is more so transliteration than most systems of transliteration from Hebrew into Latin, which are not simple 1 to 1 mapping, as you say.
>
>  
>
So then, would you call it "transliteration" to replace black letter by 
normal Latin script? Or to make a text italic? Even to change its size? 
What you are describing here is not replacing letter by letter, but 
replacing glyph by glyph, and so is outside the scope of Unicode.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Mon Dec 29 17:44:50 2003
X-UIDL: 7e3f8b9c998892556dca19da51f7f4d0
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:38:17 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab8pr-0000j4-Uj
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:38:15 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1Zn822852;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:35:49 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:35:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1Zh822822
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:35:43 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 263EA40C98F; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:35:21 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF0D66C.9050907@qaya.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:35:40 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
Cc: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <p0602041dbc0fa9946950@[192.168.0.2]> <20031226072338.18942@smtp.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.1.20031226183453.025dd970@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEE0520.2070405@qaya.org> <p06020401bc13bd03a169@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEE18A3.6020301@qaya.org> <p06020403bc13c95753f0@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org> <3FEF8647.1090207@kli.org> <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org> <3FF037A6.8070003@kli.org> <3FF03D57.9050700@qaya.org> <3FF0D1B0.4090308@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FF0D1B0.4090308@kli.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1095
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 29/12/2003 17:15, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> Does this mean we can stop fussing about it online until the proposals 
> are made?  I'll bite my tongue and try to swallow "last words" I'd 
> want to get in; can everyone else do the same?
>
I am prepared to treat this matter as unresolved for the moment, until 
formal proposals are made. But I am not prepared to accept the matter 
being treated as already decided in principle. Further research is 
required. Can we agree on that and drop the matter?

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 30 04:04:38 2003
X-UIDL: c6d5b6c6fa8034b324758a6921961c8d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:02:12 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab9D0-00019A-AY
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:02:10 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU1xc829769;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:59:38 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:59:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wlu.ca (wluw5.wlu.ca [192.54.242.118])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBU1xb829763
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:59:38 -0500
Received: from WLU-MTA by wlu.ca
	with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:59:35 -0500
Message-Id: <sff095b7.054@wlu.ca>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:59:09 -0500
From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBU1xb829763
X-archive-position: 1096
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: kfeuerherm@wlu.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBU1xc829769
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

This sounds like a very good idea.

K

Karlj=FCrgen G. Feuerherm
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies
Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3C5
(519) 884-1970 x3193
>>> Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org> 12/29/03 8:35 PM >>>
On 29/12/2003 17:15, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

> Does this mean we can stop fussing about it online until the proposals=20
> are made?  I'll bite my tongue and try to swallow "last words" I'd=20
> want to get in; can everyone else do the same?
>
I am prepared to treat this matter as unresolved for the moment, until=20
formal proposals are made. But I am not prepared to accept the matter=20
being treated as already decided in principle. Further research is=20
required. Can we agree on that and drop the matter?

--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/








From - Tue Dec 30 04:04:40 2003
X-UIDL: 60af7d45f92723349285ead96a8cf5eb
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:08:16 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1Ab9Ip-0001EE-U9
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:08:11 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU25v831566;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:05:57 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:05:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wlu.ca (wluw5.wlu.ca [192.54.242.118])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBU25v831560
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:05:57 -0500
Received: from WLU-MTA by wlu.ca
	with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:05:56 -0500
Message-Id: <sff09734.057@wlu.ca>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.2 Beta
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:05:20 -0500
From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBU25v831560
X-archive-position: 1097
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: kfeuerherm@wlu.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBU25v831566
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

[Re first two lines of your last paragraph] No Peter, I wouldn't.

Whether it is 'transliteration' depends on whether or not one takes the p=
oint of view that 'Phoenician' is a separate script from 'Hebrew' or what=
ever one wants to call it, or just a glyph variant. But that's a chicken =
and egg issue for the moment, isn't it. I was simply saying that it's tra=
nsliteration on the premise that one does.

In my opinion, the whole business of character-glyph dichotomy must in so=
me instances result in a slippery-slope situation where parent and child =
scripts are concerned, and I suspect this is one of them. In such as case=
, one can probably make a case either way, and in the end one will just h=
ave to make a decision.

I'm not decided on this issue, and happy to leave things where they are f=
or the time being, as you proposed just now.

K

Karlj=FCrgen G. Feuerherm
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies
Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3C5
(519) 884-1970 x3193
>>> Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org> 12/29/03 8:30 PM >>>
On 29/12/2003 15:41, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote:

>Two points:
>
>1. The main point of the response was simply to say that it isn't altoge=
ther black and white where transliteration Phoenician --> Square Hebrew i=
s concerned.
>
>2. But representing Phoenician in Square script, regardless of what one =
thinks of it, is certainly transliteration: replacing a letter by a lette=
r. In fact it is more so transliteration than most systems of translitera=
tion from Hebrew into Latin, which are not simple 1 to 1 mapping, as you =
say.
>
> =20
>
So then, would you call it "transliteration" to replace black letter by=20
normal Latin script? Or to make a text italic? Even to change its size?=20
What you are describing here is not replacing letter by letter, but=20
replacing glyph by glyph, and so is outside the scope of Unicode.

--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/








From - Tue Dec 30 04:04:49 2003
X-UIDL: 13feb8590997accacbbda4d188b34d0d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:11:36 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbBEE-0003QX-22
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:11:34 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU49Y828337;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:09:35 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:09:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mercury.ccil.org (mercury.ccil.org [192.190.237.100])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU49Y828331
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:09:34 -0500
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1AbBCF-0000vU-00; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:09:31 -0500
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:09:31 -0500
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
Cc: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Message-ID: <20031230040931.GJ5210@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <3FEF5977.7060700@qaya.org> <p0602040dbc150b941816@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF7649.90605@qaya.org> <3FEF7D84.2050108@kli.org> <p06020415bc152f1e6c93@[192.168.0.2]> <3FEF835E.60802@qaya.org> <3FEF8647.1090207@kli.org> <3FF02FF2.6010900@qaya.org> <p0602040abc165816a7a8@[192.168.0.2]> <3FF0D447.7030609@qaya.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3FF0D447.7030609@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
X-archive-position: 1099
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Primus scripsit:

> >I think you're being rather reactionary here.

Secundus scripsit:

> I won't tell you what I think you are being.

Sounds like the famous meeting of Samuel Johnson and Adam Smith, which
needless to say did not make it into the biography of either gentleman.

-- 
There are three kinds of people in the world:   John Cowan
those who can count,                            http://www.reutershealth.com
and those who can't.                            jcowan@reutershealth.com




From - Tue Dec 30 04:04:50 2003
X-UIDL: 88a7876e074ecd9e57983e70ca543ccd
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:29:53 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbBVw-0004y3-K8
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:29:52 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU4RV803400;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:27:31 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:27:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from priv-edtnes27.telusplanet.net (outbound04.telus.net [199.185.220.223])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU4RV803394
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:27:31 -0500
Received: from Sophia.tiro.com ([66.183.172.245])
          by priv-edtnes27.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP
          id <20031230042725.QFEB13600.priv-edtnes27.telusplanet.net@Sophia.tiro.com>
          for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:27:25 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.1.20031229202341.02d81d38@pop3.portal.ca>
X-Sender: tiro@pop3.portal.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:27:05 -0800
To: hebrew@unicode.org
From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
In-Reply-To: <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca>
 <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1100
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: tiro@tiro.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 02:12 PM 12/29/2003, Michael Everson wrote:

>>If you transliterate to Square Hebrew, then you have a choice. People can 
>>do it both ways, there isn't any rule.
>
>Either way you are transliterating from Phoenician into a different script.

Or you are transliterating to a different othography. Transliteration does 
not always imply a change of script. Again, I'm not arguing for or against 
a possible unification of some Semitic scripts, just pointing out that 
there don't seem to be any a priori, as it were, reasons to either insist 
on or reject such a unification. We really need to see a proposal.

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_





From - Tue Dec 30 04:04:50 2003
X-UIDL: e2a42c620949647898b15bc2a48d8d52
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:34:11 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbBa5-00052E-Qj
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:34:09 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU4VF804453;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:31:15 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:31:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU4VD804435
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:31:13 -0500
Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1])
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA39143
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:31:11 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Received: from [212.235.69.69] (via account qsm.co.il)
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id 6BA0cFG2
	authenticated by POP; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:31:01 -0700 (PST)
From: "Jony Rosenne" <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:30:57 +0200
Message-ID: <000501c3ce8d$bc6f7ec0$0401c80a@QSM4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
In-Reply-To: <3FF0D0B6.6060201@qaya.org>
Importance: Normal
X-archive-position: 1101
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Not exactly. Modern Hebrew does not use finals for foreign words ending with
the P sound, such as Phillip, and for some acronyms.

Jony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org 
> [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 3:11 AM
> To: John Cowan
> Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
> 
> 
> On 29/12/2003 12:53, John Cowan wrote:
> 
> > ...
> >
> >
> >This raises a question: when transliterating from Phoenician or what 
> >have you, are the Hebrew conventions on final consonants 
> respected or 
> >ignored?
> >
> >  
> >
> Good question. In a couple of examples I have to hand, final 
> forms  are 
> used word finally according to the Hebrew script rules. 
> Remember that it 
> is only anomalous modern use for Yiddish words that stops 
> Hebrew final 
> forms being encoded as contextual variants cf. Arabic.
> 
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> peter@qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 






From - Tue Dec 30 04:04:52 2003
X-UIDL: 7d4ddcab8b26310c3798bcb691ab2e69
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 05:11:11 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbC9t-0005g4-Su
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 05:11:09 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU47D825226;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:07:13 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:07:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.3])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBU47D825220
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:07:13 -0500
Received: from smrtytrek.com ([204.101.137.194])
          by tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP
          id <20031230040710.FCLN25543.tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net@smrtytrek.com>
          for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:07:10 -0500
Message-ID: <3FF0F8C4.7070507@smrtytrek.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:02:12 -0500
From: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030916
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca> <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]> <3FF0B490.7060104@smrtytrek.com> <p06020400bc16684b6142@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020400bc16684b6142@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1098
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: jallan@smrtytrek.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Michael Everson wrote:

> At 18:11 -0500 2003-12-29, Jim Allan wrote:
>
>> If you are representing ancient Phoenician characters by modern 
>> Hebrew characters then you are rendering it in a different script in 
>> one use of the word script. But I'm not sure one should call it 
>> transliterating in that case.
>>
>> Representing Beowulf with modern Latin characters also renders it in 
>> a different script. In fact there are likely to be more changes made 
>> when rendering Beowulf in modern characters. The letter wynn is 
>> usually replaced by _w_ and some diacritics and abbreviations are 
>> usually expanded.
>
>
> But by and large, apart from some of those manuscript anomolies, any 
> reader of English can look at letters written in the Beowulf hand and 
> read them right off the page. That can't be said for Phoenician and 
> Hebrew. Or for Nuskhuri and Mkhedruli.

Well, there is a page at http://kuznets.fas.harvard.edu/~volokh/beowulf.jpg

I can read it. But I know many (perhaps most) readers of modern English 
wouldn't recognize many of the letter forms.

That said, I fully admit it certainly isn't very hard to learn to read 
this script. If the same forms were used in a modern English text it 
would be easy enough to catch on with no teaching even though this is 
still a different script than used in modern English and even has a 
different alphabet containing three letters lost to standard modern English.

>> But rendering Phoenician characters bymodern Hebrew characters 
>> retains the same abjad in which it was originally written in. Nothing 
>> is lost except style.
>
>
> I disagree. Fundamental legibility disunifies them, whether or not 
> they have the same abjad structure. The same happens with the many 
> Indic scripts.


This is *the* point of disagreement. I don't think it can be got around.

I don't believe lack of common legibility should disunify when it is the 
*only* difference. Others here don't believe that either.

This is the point where argument on either side probably fails.

But the Indic scripts in ISCII were arranged in different 8-bit sets in 
matching positions as much as possible because the identity of these 
characters between scripts and languages was also recognized.

There are holes in the ISCII scripts at different places where some 
scripts have characters lacking in others. This doesn't happened with 
the old 22-character Northwestern Semitic abjad. That character set 
keeps its integrity where the more complex character sets coded by ISCII 
don't.

>> This will be true regardless of whether Phoenician and Hebrew are 
>> unified in Unicode, save that if not disunified then the value of a 
>> single coding is lost.
>
>
> Nothing prevents Semiticists from continuing to write Phoenician texts 
> in Hebrew script and working with them, just as nothing prevents 
> people from writing Pali texts in Devanagari, Sinhala, Burmese, or 
> Latin scripts.

Except that these Semticists think of Hebrew as a modern variant of the 
same script as Phoenician. The difference in appearance is a minor 
difference when compared to the other unities. Just the glyphs differ, 
and don't differ much from Aramaic scripts. Unicode encodes characters, 
not glyphs.

>> But transliterating Phoenician characters into Latin script produces 
>> different results depending on the transliteration system adopted 
>> because there is no one-to-one identity between Phoenician characters 
>> and Latin characters (in any of the normal transliteration systems).
>
>
> So transliteration of Phoenician with Hebrew might be seen as more 
> efficient then. That's fine. It's also familiar to Hebraicists. That's 
> fine too.
>
>> As to being a different script, both Phoenician and Hebrew are 
>> variants of the Northwest Semitic script (which is called the North 
>> Semitic script at http://www.bartleby.com/65/ha/HamitoSe.html  and at 
>> http://www.slider.com/enc/23000/Hamito-Semitic_languages_The_Semitic_Subfamily.htm 
>> and at 
>> http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=9298&tocid=0&query=aramaic&ct= 
>> and at 
>> http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=119413&tocid=53648&query=alphabet&ct= 
>> and at 
>> http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_1998/ling001/Writinglect.html
>>
>> Such articles use the term North Semitic script both for the supposed 
>> ancestor script of Phoenician, Hebrew and so forth and as a blanket 
>> term to cover all the scripts comprised within it.
>
>
> And other sources use other terminology, and we all get stuck on that. 
> Isn't that fun. So if I come up with a terminology, or rather use an 
> existing one which differs from the ones you googled, then you can 
> just pick at that because you're convinced your definitions are 
> better. So that's not a way forward....

I agree.

I don't think the word "script" at all helps in determining the level at 
which Unicode encoding should occur. Scripts contain scripts and they 
may contain scripts and so forth. Your arguments pointing out that 
something is a called a different script in a source doesn't prove one 
way or the other that there is reason to encode it separately in Unicode 
or not to do so. Semiticists do use "script" at a very low level just as 
is done with Latin and also at a hight level, referring even to the 
"Semitic script".

The same source is likely to agree in one place and disagree in another 
as to whether modern Hebrew letters make up the same script as ancient 
Phoenician letters depending on the context.

>> Similarly "Latin script" can be used to mean the original Latin 
>> script as opposed to non-Latin scripts such as Etruscan and Greek 
>> scripts and Punic and so forth or "Latin script"  can be used as 
>> enveloping term for the later scripts which developed from it.
>
>
> I do not believe that Latin proliferated into the number of "scripts" 
> that Canaanite/Northwest Semitic did. Roman wax tablets and some 
> English chancery hands are pretty illegible, as is my own handwriting 
> after enough Guinness. But they're not considered "scripts" in the 
> same way that the Semitic ones are.

They were originally regional scripts which have in part become 
universally recognized styles. In becoming universally recognized as 
styles they are not the same. Similarly with Hebrew scripts like Rashi 
and Ari. Yet Fraktur, for example, is still strongly associated with 
Germany to those who recognize it and can distinguish it from other 
Blackletter scripts. Other Latin letter scripts originally had 
particular geographical and cultural associations.

Accordingly they are both like and unlike the ancient Semitic abjad 
scripts that Semiticists work with. In part this is because the 
influence of a single church which controlled learning and held back 
changes in scripts which otherwise would likely have diverged more. Then 
under humanist influence the Antiqua script (followed by the Italic 
script) gained predominance.

> In one sense rendering characters or Phoenician form with modern 
> Hebrew characters is rendering in a different script. In another 
> sense, it is not. An ancient Phoenician script and a modern Hebrew 
> script are both variants of the Northwest Semitic script and both use 
> the same abjad/alphabet.
>
> You mixing things here. They descend from Canaanite/NWS and share its 
> structure. So do Greek and Etruscan, very nearly. Arabic and 
> Devanagari less so. Indeed Hebrew differs, in having innovated final 
> forms of some consonants, and also stretching some letters to fill out 
> lines.

The Greeks changed the values of some of the letters immediately because 
of a very different phonetic structure and also split waw/vav into two 
characters  and added extra characters. The use of letters purely as 
vowels made a *great* difference in the "structure" of the script. We 
have an alphabet rather than an abjad (though Phoenician spelling was 
not completely consonantal)  and an alphabet different enough that Greek 
words and names cannot be represented fully in Phoenician and Phoenician 
words and names cannot be fully represented in Greek using the normal 
conventions of the respective scripts.

We don't find such differences in the Northwest Semitic script variants. 
We find the same letters repeated again and again with the same values 
or very close to the same values, far closer than what the Greek did 
with many of the letters.

Instead the real difference among the Northwest Semitic scripts is in 
appearance. Appearance differs most between the 
Phoenician/paleo-Hebrew/Samaritan style and the late Aramaic scripts. 
This last is indeed greater on the whole than the difference between 
early Greek character glyphs and Phoenician glyphs.

As you must recognize by now, when all else is the same a difference in 
appearance is held by many to be less important than it otherwise would 
be. Semiticists, the community of people who deal with the ancient 
Aramaic scripts and Phoenician scripts,  don't consider the appearances 
to be as important as the unities of character value and common origin.

Presumably those responsible for encoding Runic characters in Unicode 
were even more ready to merge various scripts into one conglomerate 
encoding. That was what was done in any case, different alphabets and 
scripts all squashed together. I think it was well done.

Do you agree?

On finals in Hebrew see  
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1308&letter=A :

<< The Palmyrene script possesses a final /Nun/ with a lengthened stem; 
the Nabatean contains similarly final /Kaph, Nun, Z.ade/, and /Shin/, 
and further a closed final /Mem/ and final /He/. >>

These don't match the exact finals of Hebrew of course. But should that 
really matter? I don't think most would want to consider the old Latin 
alphabet or the old Greek alphabet to require different encodings in 
Unicode because they were caseless. The  dropping of medial lowercase 
long  _s_ in Latin scripts to doesn't mean we need a separate encoding 
of the Latin script in Unicode for texts with long _s_ and texts lacking 
long _s_.

To be sure, long _s_ is only one character and Hebrew has five 
characters with different positional forms. But is that five times the 
reason to disunify modern Hebrew and Aramaic scripts or disunify modern 
Hebrew and Phoenician. Just add the five characters as was done with 
long _s_. Ooops, look, they have already been added. ;-)

It seems odd to me to consider final distinctions as a reason to 
separate the square Hebrew forms from Aramaic scripts , especially when 
some Aramaic scripts also have distinctive final forms. There are also 
cursive fonts in Latin cursive that have special final swash forms of 
letters but don't accordingly require a separate script. Of course use 
of such finals is entirely optional.

> I believe that scribes who wrote Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew 
> Tetragrammatons in the midst of Aramaic/Hebrew text knew what they 
> were doing. This is not font switching -- it's not like putting the 
> name of the LORD in small caps. They knew that they were using a 
> different alphabet, a different script. **Not** just a different hand.

Yes, they had a particular purpose in representing the name in the older 
traditional script.  They were script switching, if you prefer that to 
font switching. But they were *not* using a different alphabet or abjad. 
The character set was the same.

That doesn't indicate one way or the other to me that the older script 
must therefore be encoded separately within Unicode any more than 
various other oddities in Biblical manuscripts such as broken vav, qof 
joined and without taggim, rolled up pe, various letters with taggim 
'crowns' and so forth should be coded separately. That is the kind of 
thing markup should deal with.

The letters YHWH are the same characters in either script,  differing 
only in the glyphs used but with exactly the same values and origin: 
yod, heh, waw, heh. The scribes used the old glyphs but the abjad was 
the same.

Being able to search between Phoenician/paleo-Hebrew and Aramaic texts 
is far more important than the exact forms of characters which vary so 
much in any case from any standard font one might make for a Phoenician 
or Aramaic text.

An answer that would solve everything would be a method by which one 
could easily display the form one wanted and also search for the 
matching characters. But the forms of inscriptions and texts are far 
more various then simple charts show which is why there has been no 
great demand for special fonts. So normally scholars show the original 
as a photograph or drawing and also render the characters either in the 
same abjad/alphabet in their modern Hebrew form or in a Latin letter 
transliteration.

Some choices:

1.) Unify all the old Northwestern Semitic scripts in Unicode.
          Advantage: easy searching among the very closely related 
languages which they most normally represent.
          Disadvantage: markup is needed to display particular forms 
which a user might want to display.

2.)  Encode a large number of Northwestern Semitic scripts in Unicode 
separately.
          Advantage: no markup is needed to display somewhat 
approximately the particular forms which a user might want to display. 
(But an exact font choice is still necessary for the precise style.)
          Disadvantage: searching even in the same language becomes a 
nightmare without special search engines unlikely to be easily available 
at all times and in all environments.
         
Something intermediate might be done instead, such as only encoding 
separately 1) Aramaic/Hebrew, 2) Phoenician/paleo-Hebrew and 3) 
Samaritan. But I think almost all Semiticists would prefer the first 
choice because they recognize the unity of the characters despite the 
differences in the glyphs. That still doesn't prevent anyone from using 
any script or style they wish by simply changing a font in environments 
where that is possible.

This splitting into three would still mean three different encodings of 
the Hebrew Torah manuscripts with mostly the same text, all three 
written in fact in characters that Semiticists recognize as the same 
characters.

No-one is prevented by a unified encoding from displaying a particular 
style of early Phoenician any more than anyone is prevented from display 
runes in a particular style because Unicode has unified all the Runic 
scripts.

I would expect more precise display to become increasingly possible 
whether by language tags or script tags or other methods as that is an 
issue also with other scripts that have been encoded in Unicode. 
Standard search engines I think less likely to start unifying different 
scripts in their searching.



Jim Allan





From - Tue Dec 30 04:44:27 2003
X-UIDL: 1b7bdfac13f00c80d48c4c6a221a3bcf
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:42:04 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbJCF-0006lM-TF
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:42:03 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUCdA826376;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:39:10 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:39:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUCd9826370
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:39:09 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 3164240D540; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:38:56 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF171E7.1090601@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:39:03 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca> <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]> <3FF0B490.7060104@smrtytrek.com> <p06020400bc16684b6142@[192.168.0.2]> <3FF0F8C4.7070507@smrtytrek.com>
In-Reply-To: <3FF0F8C4.7070507@smrtytrek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1102
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Thank you, Jim, for this well argued contribution. I agree with most of 
it. See also below.

On 29/12/2003 20:02, Jim Allan wrote:

> ...
> Well, there is a page at 
> http://kuznets.fas.harvard.edu/~volokh/beowulf.jpg
>
> I can read it. But I know many (perhaps most) readers of modern 
> English wouldn't recognize many of the letter forms.

I can't read it. At least, there are several letter forms which I do not 
recognise or at least cannot be sure of.

>
> ...
> Accordingly they are both like and unlike the ancient Semitic abjad 
> scripts that Semiticists work with. In part this is because the 
> influence of a single church which controlled learning and held back 
> changes in scripts which otherwise would likely have diverged more. 
> Then under humanist influence the Antiqua script (followed by the 
> Italic script) gained predominance.
>
The influence of religious establishments is of course very significant 
in standardising and distinguishing scripts. In Europe, this has 
stabilised the three-way division between Latin, Greek and Cyrillic 
script, and the link to religion is still very clear in Serbia and 
Croatia. In the Semitic world, each of the modern scripts: Hebrew, 
Arabic, Syriac, Samaritan, Mandaic (from my limited knowledge) and 
Ethiopic is closely assoicated with a separate religious establishment, 
which has stabilised the script and ensured its survival as a separate 
entity. This stabilisation probably justifies each of these being 
encoded separately in Unicode, even where other things are equal.

But this criterion doesn't help us much with ancient scripts which 
predate the rise of the specific religions. These survive only in a 
rather small number of ancient inscriptions, papyri etc, which generally 
show less standardisation and more regional variation than modern 
scripts; and the random nature of the surviving materials tends to 
obsucre the underlying systematic unity behind the glyph variability. 
The danger of the splitting approach is that we end up with a separate 
Unicode script for each inscription or cache of papyri, which is 
certainly not an efficient way to go!


-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 30 04:54:26 2003
X-UIDL: 0d95c38678e888f5ab43571691f87f61
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:47:43 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbJHe-0006wQ-JE
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:47:38 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUChT829053;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:43:29 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:43:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUChS829041
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:43:28 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 115B840D540; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:43:20 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF172EF.2080106@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:43:27 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jony Rosenne <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <000501c3ce8d$bc6f7ec0$0401c80a@QSM4>
In-Reply-To: <000501c3ce8d$bc6f7ec0$0401c80a@QSM4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1103
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 29/12/2003 20:30, Jony Rosenne wrote:

>Not exactly. Modern Hebrew does not use finals for foreign words ending with
>the P sound, such as Phillip, and for some acronyms.
>
>Jony
>
>  
>
Thanks for the clarification. But it does seem that this is an 
essentially modern usage, especially in Hebrew, which is not generally 
recognised or followed by scholars of ancient scripts.

Note that in biblical Hebrew final pe with dagesh is used for a 
word-final P sound (which occurs just once in the Hebrew Bible).

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 30 10:14:28 2003
X-UIDL: a7677679f004b848f79aa88c53272f76
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:06:13 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbOFw-0006Ht-Kg
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:06:12 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUI39818748;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:03:09 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:03:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUI38818742
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:03:09 -0500
Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1])
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA58518
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:03:02 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Received: from [212.235.64.254] (via account qsm.co.il)
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id xCF0THL2
	authenticated by POP; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:02:53 -0700 (PST)
From: "Jony Rosenne" <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:02:50 +0200
Message-ID: <000601c3ceff$27eb72f0$0401c80a@QSM4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
In-Reply-To: <3FF172EF.2080106@qaya.org>
Importance: Normal
X-archive-position: 1104
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

I looked up Rashi, and he does not use the final form in acronyms, for
example  Alef Ayin Gershayim Pe. So it isn't only modern usage. I wonder
what he did if he had French references that ended with a p - most end with
an s.

Jony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org 
> [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 2:43 PM
> To: Jony Rosenne
> Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
> Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
> 
> 
> On 29/12/2003 20:30, Jony Rosenne wrote:
> 
> >Not exactly. Modern Hebrew does not use finals for foreign 
> words ending 
> >with the P sound, such as Phillip, and for some acronyms.
> >
> >Jony
> >
> >  
> >
> Thanks for the clarification. But it does seem that this is an 
> essentially modern usage, especially in Hebrew, which is not 
> generally 
> recognised or followed by scholars of ancient scripts.
> 
> Note that in biblical Hebrew final pe with dagesh is used for a 
> word-final P sound (which occurs just once in the Hebrew Bible).
> 
> -- 
> Peter Kirk
> peter@qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 






From - Tue Dec 30 10:34:28 2003
X-UIDL: 85dd41f7de6047dde37182875f8b5f21
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:26:11 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbOZG-0006nm-4q
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:26:10 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUION819600;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:24:23 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:24:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ns1.eds.se (ns1.eds.se [212.209.91.10])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUIOJ819582;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:24:20 -0500
Received: from SESLMESGM002.esko-graphics.com (seslmex103 [10.31.128.25])
	by ns1.eds.se (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBUIO9WO063957;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:24:11 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from peterkirk@qaya.org)
Received: from mail pickup service by SESLMESGM002.esko-graphics.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:24:09 +0100
Received: from ns1.eds.se ([212.209.91.194]) by SESLMESGM002.esko-graphics.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
	 Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:42:18 +0100
Received: from unicode.org (unicode.org [209.235.17.55])
	by ns1.eds.se (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id hBT0gB39067543
	for <JUDD@esko-graphics.com>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:42:13 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from unicode-bounce@unicode.org)
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBSNYR829190;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:34:27 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list unicode); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:34:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBSNYD829177;
	Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:34:14 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 7EDFC40732B; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:33:55 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:34:12 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>
Cc: unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
In-Reply-To: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 11308
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: unicode
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2003 00:42:18.0988 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D0F92C0:01C3CDA4]
X-archive-position: 1105
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 28/12/2003 13:16, Jim Allan wrote:

> ...
> For an example of what might be needed, see Rochelle I. S. Altman's 
> discussion "Some Aspects of Older Writing Systems: With Focus on the 
> DSS" at 
> http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/Altman99.shtml :
>
> Altman indicates how differences in ligaturing, height, spacing and 
> glyph variation are used in the unpointed  "Phoenician/Hebraic Writing 
> Systems" to indicate emphasis, pause, stress and even the difference 
> between shin and sin.
>
> Encoding these texts with reasonable fullness would require a 
> "stressed variant" variation selector, vowel phone variation 
> selectors, a sin/shin variation selector as well as ZWJ and variant 
> spaces already encoded.
>
> Jim Allan
>
Thank you, Jim, for this interesting reference, which I am copying to 
the Hebrew list.

I note that the author refers inconsistently, even within the same 
paragraph, to "the Phoenician/Hebraic writing systems" and "the 
Phoenician/Hebraic writing system". When he uses more careful 
terminology, he writes: "one symbol-set system, 
<http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/Altman99.shtml#ftnt2> 
but two different script systems: Paleo-Hebraic and Square Aramaic" 
(i.e. in Unicode terms, Phoenician and Hebrew). See also footnote 33 
which explains the terminology further and makes analogies with Latin 
and Greek.

But I think that this document should also be taken with a big pinch of 
salt. The author assert that "In trilinear limit systems, the symbols 
move up and down according to the stress rhythms of the languages. // 
Durational notation, that is, the length of time a sound should be held, 
is recorded by the amount of movement from side-to-side, that is, 
expansions and contractions of the space between graphic forms." But 
this is simply untrue as a generalisation across many script systems, 
even if it is true of some examples of some scripts. There is of course 
an obvious tendency for some writers of any language to write important 
words, those stressed when spoken, with larger or more carefully shaped 
and spaced glyphs, and to write secondary material, whichis likely to be 
spoken hurriedly, with small and indistinct glyphs. But this kind of 
variation is surely beyond the scope of Unicode.

It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a glyph 
distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in the 
"serech" example 
(http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of what 
is undoubtedly (in Unicode terms) Hebrew script. If this distinction can 
be verified a case can be made for encoding a separate HEBREW LETTER 
SIN, equivalent to shin with sin dot. But it is difficult to verify this 
when three scribes within the same document make the distinction in 
three different ways.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/







From - Tue Dec 30 10:54:30 2003
X-UIDL: 5efaa76101da0077173ed3f2b14dc6e0
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:49:40 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbOvz-0007Oc-L6
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:49:39 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUIjN821965;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:45:23 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:45:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tomts23-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts23.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.185])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUIjM821958
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:45:22 -0500
Received: from smrtytrek.com ([204.101.137.194])
          by tomts23-srv.bellnexxia.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP
          id <20031230184521.QVCI4010.tomts23-srv.bellnexxia.net@smrtytrek.com>
          for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:45:21 -0500
Message-ID: <3FF1C7D0.8060103@smrtytrek.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:45:36 -0500
From: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030916
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca> <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]> <3FF0B490.7060104@smrtytrek.com> <p06020400bc16684b6142@[192.168.0.2]> <3FF0F8C4.7070507@smrtytrek.com> <3FF171E7.1090601@qaya.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FF171E7.1090601@qaya.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1106
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: jallan@smrtytrek.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Peter Kirk wrote:

> Thank you, Jim, for this well argued contribution. I agree with most 
> of it. See also below.
>
> On 29/12/2003 20:02, Jim Allan wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Well, there is a page at 
>> http://kuznets.fas.harvard.edu/~volokh/beowulf.jpg
>>
>> I can read it. But I know many (perhaps most) readers of modern 
>> English wouldn't recognize many of the letter forms.
>
>
> I can't read it. At least, there are several letter forms which I do 
> not recognise or at least cannot be sure of.
>
>>
>> ...
>> Accordingly they are both like and unlike the ancient Semitic abjad 
>> scripts that Semiticists work with. In part this is because the 
>> influence of a single church which controlled learning and held back 
>> changes in scripts which otherwise would likely have diverged more. 
>> Then under humanist influence the Antiqua script (followed by the 
>> Italic script) gained predominance.
>>
> The influence of religious establishments is of course very 
> significant in standardising and distinguishing scripts. In Europe, 
> this has stabilised the three-way division between Latin, Greek and 
> Cyrillic script, and the link to religion is still very clear in 
> Serbia and Croatia. In the Semitic world, each of the modern scripts: 
> Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, Samaritan, Mandaic (from my limited knowledge) 
> and Ethiopic is closely assoicated with a separate religious 
> establishment, which has stabilised the script and ensured its 
> survival as a separate entity. This stabilisation probably justifies 
> each of these being encoded separately in Unicode, even where other 
> things are equal.
>
> But this criterion doesn't help us much with ancient scripts which 
> predate the rise of the specific religions. These survive only in a 
> rather small number of ancient inscriptions, papyri etc, which 
> generally show less standardisation and more regional variation than 
> modern scripts; and the random nature of the surviving materials tends 
> to obsucre the underlying systematic unity behind the glyph 
> variability. The danger of the splitting approach is that we end up 
> with a separate Unicode script for each inscription or cache of 
> papyri, which is certainly not an efficient way to go!

Yes.

The differences between various ancient Aramaic hands and scripts, in my 
opinion, is no more different from modern Hebrew characters than the 
insular script in which Beowulf was written is different from modern 
Times Roman. They are no more different from each other than medieval 
Latin scripts are.

Compare three scripts of Hebrew in use today at 
http://pages.cthome.net/hirsch/heb-alph.htm with the Palmyric Aramaic 
forms shown by Michael Everson at 
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2042.pdf or the small set of 
Aramaic scripts shown in http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf

The three "modern" Hebrew "scripts" differ among themselves in 
appearance as much as the Aramaic scripts differ from Hebrew. The 
Aramaic scripts are at also least as much like each other as the three 
Hebrew scripts are.

This can be *seen*.

Appearance alone *can* be used to distinguish 
Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew/paleo-Aramaic and the later Aramaic scripts. 
Those two sets of scripts do have greatly differing appearances but also 
great internal similarities.

If appearance alone counts then separate encoding of these two sets of 
script is reasonable. But below that level you get nothing but glyph 
variations, non-matches between particular scripts on particular 
characters but a general match on the scripts as a whole, matches at 
least as obvious as with medieval and modern Latin scripts.


Jim Allan














From - Tue Dec 30 11:04:27 2003
X-UIDL: a72c177beda6dce8410ec2b3ea6355a2
X-Mozilla-Status: 0203
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:54:35 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbP0j-0007XN-8K
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:54:33 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUIpS822382;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:51:29 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:51:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from priv-edtnes14-hme0.telusplanet.net (outbound03.telus.net [199.185.220.222])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUIin821895;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:44:54 -0500
Received: from Sophia.tiro.com ([66.183.172.245])
          by priv-edtnes14-hme0.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP
          id <20031230184443.FBCZ10272.priv-edtnes14-hme0.telusplanet.net@Sophia.tiro.com>;
          Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:44:43 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca>
X-Sender: tiro@pop3.portal.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:44:23 -0800
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Cc: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>, unicode@unicode.org, hebrew@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <3FEF6874.10705@qaya.org>
References: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
 <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1107
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: tiro@tiro.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 03:34 PM 12/28/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:

>It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a glyph 
>distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in the 
>"serech" example 
>(http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of what is 
>undoubtedly (in Unicode terms) Hebrew script. If this distinction can be 
>verified a case can be made for encoding a separate HEBREW LETTER SIN, 
>equivalent to shin with sin dot. But it is difficult to verify this when 
>three scribes within the same document make the distinction in three 
>different ways.

Even if it were verified, it isn't a good case for encoding a separate 
character *equivalent* to a combination of two existing characters: that's 
a glyph variant ligature.

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_





From - Tue Dec 30 11:14:35 2003
X-UIDL: 9e305b81d4dafd22f5672557e16fc02b
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:09:14 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbPEs-000894-AN
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:09:10 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJ7h823336;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:07:43 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:07:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJ7g823330
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:07:42 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id B21E3408886; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:07:27 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF1CCFC.3010906@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:07:40 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jony Rosenne <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <000601c3ceff$27eb72f0$0401c80a@QSM4>
In-Reply-To: <000601c3ceff$27eb72f0$0401c80a@QSM4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1108
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 30/12/2003 10:02, Jony Rosenne wrote:

>I looked up Rashi, and he does not use the final form in acronyms, for
>example  Alef Ayin Gershayim Pe. So it isn't only modern usage. I wonder
>what he did if he had French references that ended with a p - most end with
>an s.
>
>Jony
>
>  
>
Interesting. So I looked at the facsimile of the Leningrad Codex (1007 
CE) and found that final forms are not generally used in the marginal 
notes (Masora), which are mostly abbreviations. So I must agree that 
non-usage of final forms in abbreviations is not a modern practice. But 
apparenty it is in connected text, except for a very few well-known 
exceptions which probably originated as textual differences.



-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 30 11:22:20 2003
X-UIDL: 3a3b4ac2873007859eb6d4e1a725dd1d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:20:47 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbPQ5-00006o-SZ
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:20:45 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJDq823605;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:13:52 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:13:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net (ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net [194.46.8.26])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJDp823593
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:13:51 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [194.46.84.225]) by ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net
 (Vircom SMTPRS 3.0.273) with ESMTP id <B0035023672@ni-mail2.dna.utvinternet.net>;
 Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:13:42 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: evr001@mail.dna.ie
Message-Id: <p06020415bc177b03c4be@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <3FF1C7D0.8060103@smrtytrek.com>
References: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca> <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FF0B490.7060104@smrtytrek.com> <p06020400bc16684b6142@[192.168.0.2]>
 <3FF0F8C4.7070507@smrtytrek.com> <3FF171E7.1090601@qaya.org>
 <3FF1C7D0.8060103@smrtytrek.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:10:28 +0000
To: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-archive-position: 1109
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: everson@evertype.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 13:45 -0500 2003-12-30, Jim Allan wrote:

>Compare three scripts of Hebrew in use today at 
>http://pages.cthome.net/hirsch/heb-alph.htm with the Palmyric 
>Aramaic forms shown by Michael Everson at 
>http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2042.pdf

Shown by Unicode Technical Report #2, not by Michael Everson.

>  or the small set of Aramaic scripts shown in 
>http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2311.pdf

That is not meant to be definitive, and anyway we can hardly even 
talk to one another since you are using "script" in a completely 
different way than I am.

>The three "modern" Hebrew "scripts" differ among themselves in 
>appearance as much as the Aramaic scripts differ from Hebrew.

They do not. Even the ductus for Hebrew handwriting isn't all that 
different from the printed form, and certainly that's true for Rashi, 
which is just a cursive variety of Square Hebrew.

A small single-tick YOD is shared by all of these, for instance, as 
opposed to the large tree-toothed YUT used in Samaritan.

>The Aramaic scripts are at also least as much like each other as the 
>three Hebrew scripts are.

I don't believe that this statement is true. It goes against 
everything I have ever learned about script classification.

>Appearance alone *can* be used to distinguish 
>Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew/paleo-Aramaic and the later Aramaic scripts. 
>Those two sets of scripts do have greatly differing appearances but 
>also great internal similarities.

Indeed.

>If appearance alone counts then separate encoding of these two sets 
>of script is reasonable.

I think that the major nodes identified by scholars are indicative of 
entities which are probably worthy of encoding.

>But below that level you get nothing but glyph variations, 
>non-matches between particular scripts on particular characters but 
>a general match on the scripts as a whole, matches at least as 
>obvious as with medieval and modern Latin scripts.

I don't suggest that every palaeographical variant be encoded as a 
separate script. But I don't believe that when we encoded Hebrew, we 
encoded all of Northwest Semitic. We encoded Hebrew.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com




From - Tue Dec 30 11:24:28 2003
X-UIDL: e37e6327b70938664cd7dff6b8da7346
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:24:10 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbPTM-0000H3-3b
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:24:08 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJGO823672;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:30 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:16:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJFi823656
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:15:54 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 97A64408822; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:15:26 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF1CEDB.8000308@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:15:39 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com> <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com> <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1110
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 30/12/2003 10:44, John Hudson wrote:

> At 03:34 PM 12/28/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a 
>> glyph distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in 
>> the "serech" example 
>> (http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of 
>> what is undoubtedly (in Unicode terms) Hebrew script. If this 
>> distinction can be verified a case can be made for encoding a 
>> separate HEBREW LETTER SIN, equivalent to shin with sin dot. But it 
>> is difficult to verify this when three scribes within the same 
>> document make the distinction in three different ways.
>
>
> Even if it were verified, it isn't a good case for encoding a separate 
> character *equivalent* to a combination of two existing characters: 
> that's a glyph variant ligature.
>

Actually, I don't think so. The separate character was not formed by 
merging the dot into the letter, rather the distinction was made in a 
different way. For an analogy, some African languages use an open e, 
U+025B, for a sound similar to the French e grave, and very likely in 
some cases there is an alternative orthography for the same language 
(perhaps used in a former French colony) which uses e grave for the same 
sound. But (if U+025B were not already encoded) I don't think that would 
be a good argument for refusing to encode open e except as a ligature of 
e and a grave accent. After all, these are not typographically related.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 30 11:44:28 2003
X-UIDL: c16bf8c357c171eac315655ecd97b413
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:43:08 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbPlf-0000wb-9G
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:43:03 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJdc824327;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:39:38 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:39:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJdW824321
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:39:32 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 49BB14075FB; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:39:12 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF1D46D.1090804@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:39:25 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
Cc: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <sff05f55.005@wlu.ca> <p06020409bc1657337288@[192.168.0.2]> <3FF0B490.7060104@smrtytrek.com> <p06020400bc16684b6142@[192.168.0.2]> <3FF0F8C4.7070507@smrtytrek.com> <3FF171E7.1090601@qaya.org> <3FF1C7D0.8060103@smrtytrek.com> <p06020415bc177b03c4be@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <p06020415bc177b03c4be@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1111
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 30/12/2003 11:10, Michael Everson wrote:

> ...
>
>> If appearance alone counts then separate encoding of these two sets 
>> of script is reasonable.
>
>
> I think that the major nodes identified by scholars are indicative of 
> entities which are probably worthy of encoding.
>
>> But below that level you get nothing but glyph variations, 
>> non-matches between particular scripts on particular characters but a 
>> general match on the scripts as a whole, matches at least as obvious 
>> as with medieval and modern Latin scripts.
>
>
> I don't suggest that every palaeographical variant be encoded as a 
> separate script. But I don't believe that when we encoded Hebrew, we 
> encoded all of Northwest Semitic. We encoded Hebrew.

Thank you, Michael, for these well stated statements of the situation. I 
accept that a good case can be made for encoding one additional script, 
i.e. Phoenician/Palaeo-Hebrew(/Samaritan?) (which is how I understand 
Jim's suggestion, is that right?), if there is a user community for 
which this will be useful. On the other hand, if, as Jim and I both 
think, almost all Semiticists would prefer unification, then I don't see 
a good reason not to unify.

A suggestion was made in passing on the main Unicode list that variation 
selectors could be used here. That might be appropriate if, as may well 
be true, there is a small demand for separate scripts but the majority 
prefer unification. We could define VS's indicating Phoenician, 
Nabataean, etc, to whatever level of splitting anyone might want, and 
use these with the existing "Hebrew" characters to select the required 
glyphs where available. Not efficient for long texts, of course, as I 
think we need the VS for each individual character, but then the entire 
surviving corpora in most of these scripts (not for Samaritan) are no 
more than a few KB.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 30 11:54:30 2003
X-UIDL: 8b1cd3b06d4d2db588937c2384baae6e
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:48:20 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbPqk-00016Q-6U
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:48:18 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJie824488;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:44:40 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:44:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from priv-edtnes11-hme0.telusplanet.net (outbound03.telus.net [199.185.220.222])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJid824482
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:44:39 -0500
Received: from Sophia.tiro.com ([66.183.172.245])
          by priv-edtnes11-hme0.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP
          id <20031230194433.GEOH21747.priv-edtnes11-hme0.telusplanet.net@Sophia.tiro.com>;
          Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:44:33 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230113854.03101d90@pop3.portal.ca>
X-Sender: tiro@pop3.portal.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:44:13 -0800
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Cc: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <3FF1CEDB.8000308@qaya.org>
References: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
 <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1112
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: tiro@tiro.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 11:15 AM 12/30/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:

>>Even if it were verified, it isn't a good case for encoding a separate 
>>character *equivalent* to a combination of two existing characters: 
>>that's a glyph variant ligature.
>
>Actually, I don't think so. The separate character was not formed by 
>merging the dot into the letter, rather the distinction was made in a 
>different way.

In modern digital font development, ligation refers to the mechanism of 
display, not the visual appearance, which is largely irrelevant. A ligature 
is any glyph that represents two or more characters, typically arrived at 
by a ligation lookup. If I wanted a special sin glyph *equivalent* to the 
character sequence <shin, sindot>, I would ligate the two characters to 
that single glyph, either directly

         shin sindot -> sin

or via a two-stage stylistic variant lookup associated with a different 
typographic feature

         shin sindot -> shin_sindot
and then
         shin_sindot -> sin

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_





From - Tue Dec 30 11:54:32 2003
X-UIDL: f8dde16f35390644dbea4b0f09295f03
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:52:56 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbPvC-0001Db-Qk
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:52:54 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJnY824583;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:49:39 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:49:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from priv-edtnes57.telusplanet.net (defout.telus.net [199.185.220.240])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUJmr824570
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:49:13 -0500
Received: from Sophia.tiro.com ([66.183.172.245])
          by priv-edtnes57.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP
          id <20031230194815.LHKS14690.priv-edtnes57.telusplanet.net@Sophia.tiro.com>;
          Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:48:15 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230114444.03a29068@pop3.portal.ca>
X-Sender: tiro@pop3.portal.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:47:55 -0800
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Cc: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
In-Reply-To: <3FF1CEDB.8000308@qaya.org>
References: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
 <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1113
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: tiro@tiro.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 11:15 AM 12/30/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:

>For an analogy, some African languages use an open e, U+025B, for a sound 
>similar to the French e grave, and very likely in some cases there is an 
>alternative orthography for the same language (perhaps used in a former 
>French colony) which uses e grave for the same sound. But (if U+025B were 
>not already encoded) I don't think that would be a good argument for 
>refusing to encode open e except as a ligature of e and a grave accent. 
>After all, these are not typographically related.

But the open e character is not *equivalent* to the character sequence <e, 
grave> except in some specific orthographies. When you said 'equivalent' 
with regard to a special sin and <shin, sindot> I presumed you meant 
normatively equivalent at the character level.

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_





From - Tue Dec 30 12:34:29 2003
X-UIDL: 9fa815b337e1973ed6b90325c35da76b
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:34:21 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbQZE-0002Lw-G5
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:34:16 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUKQc801268;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:26:38 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:26:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUKQc801262
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:26:38 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id F1518408883; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:26:21 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF1DF7C.9090300@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:26:36 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: Jim Allan <jallan@smrtytrek.com>, hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com> <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com> <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca> <5.2.1.1.1.20031230114444.03a29068@pop3.portal.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230114444.03a29068@pop3.portal.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 1114
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 30/12/2003 11:47, John Hudson wrote:

> At 11:15 AM 12/30/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> For an analogy, some African languages use an open e, U+025B, for a 
>> sound similar to the French e grave, and very likely in some cases 
>> there is an alternative orthography for the same language (perhaps 
>> used in a former French colony) which uses e grave for the same 
>> sound. But (if U+025B were not already encoded) I don't think that 
>> would be a good argument for refusing to encode open e except as a 
>> ligature of e and a grave accent. After all, these are not 
>> typographically related.
>
>
> But the open e character is not *equivalent* to the character sequence 
> <e, grave> except in some specific orthographies. When you said 
> 'equivalent' with regard to a special sin and <shin, sindot> I 
> presumed you meant normatively equivalent at the character level.
>
That is the problem, then. I didn't really mean "normatively equivalent 
at the character level", only that they are alternative ways of 
representing the same phoneme. There are of course many such 
alternatives in Unicode which are not "normatively equivalent at the 
character level".

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 30 13:21:33 2003
X-UIDL: 78f44ac85fc158ac8ba11ad0d1b6b766
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:21:02 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbRIS-0003i6-3X
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:21:00 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBULDN806893;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:13:23 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:13:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBULDN806887;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:13:23 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id 2AE9640DE85; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:13:01 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF1EA6C.6090605@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:13:16 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org, Unicode List <unicode@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Ligatures with diacritics (was: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script)
References: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca> <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com> <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com> <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca> <5.2.1.1.1.20031230113854.03101d90@pop3.portal.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230113854.03101d90@pop3.portal.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1115
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBULDN806893
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 30/12/2003 11:44, John Hudson wrote:

> At 11:15 AM 12/30/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>>> Even if it were verified, it isn't a good case for encoding a=20
>>> separate character *equivalent* to a combination of two existing=20
>>> characters: that's a glyph variant ligature.
>>
>>
>> Actually, I don't think so. The separate character was not formed by=20
>> merging the dot into the letter, rather the distinction was made in a=20
>> different way.
>
>
> In modern digital font development, ligation refers to the mechanism=20
> of display, not the visual appearance, which is largely irrelevant. A=20
> ligature is any glyph that represents two or more characters,=20
> typically arrived at by a ligation lookup. If I wanted a special sin=20
> glyph *equivalent* to the character sequence <shin, sindot>, I would=20
> ligate the two characters to that single glyph, either directly
>
>         shin sindot -> sin
>
> or via a two-stage stylistic variant lookup associated with a=20
> different typographic feature
>
>         shin sindot -> shin_sindot
> and then
>         shin_sindot -> sin
>
>
I understand this, and, as I answered separately, I don't think this is=20
the appopriate mechanism in this case as the suggested ligature is not=20
fully equivalent to the sequence.

But if it were, this ligature would be very interesting and problematic=20
because it is a ligature between a base character and a diacritic. This=20
is not a problem if it is always used, in a particular font, but it is=20
problematic if the ligature is optional. This is because ZWNJ and ZWJ=20
cannot be used between base characters and diacritics because they break=20
the combining sequence. We came across this problem before with Hebrew=20
script, but in a rather different (and less ambiguous) context, that of=20
the need for a ligature between meteg and hataf vowels.

I wonder if there are other, better defined, cases of ligatures between=20
base characters and diacritics in other scripts, i.e. cases where there=20
is an optional alternative to base character plus diacritic which does=20
not look like the base character plus the diacritic. Candidates like =F8=20
as an alternative for =F6 are ruled out because they are already=20
separately encoded. I have certainly seen glyphs rather like U+0255 used=20
for c cedilla. In the light of recent discussions, I can easily imagine=20
a script or style like Sutterlin having a special ligated form for u=20
umlaut, but that this ligature must not be used, rather two dots should=20
be written above the letter as in normal Latin script, in the name Sa=FCl=
=20
in which the dots represent a diaeresis rather than an umlaut.

OpenType etc fonts are currently able to make these distinctions=20
consistently, with the mechanisms John described above; but these=20
mechanisms fail if there is a need for the ligature to be optional, as=20
ZWNJ and ZWJ cannot be used.

Are there any real examples where this might be necessary?

As this is a more general issue, I am coying it back to the main Unicode=20
list.

--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Tue Dec 30 14:54:29 2003
X-UIDL: 4d320f4ce3f3dd123101256d6320a7d8
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:53:19 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbSjj-00068s-6b
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:53:15 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUMlN822339;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:47:28 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:47:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUMkv822324
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:47:18 -0500
Received: from qaya.org (unknown [213.162.124.237])
	by mail.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP
	id CCF1941542E; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:46:09 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <3FF20042.9040609@qaya.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:46:26 -0800
From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925
X-Accept-Language: en-gb, en, en-us, az, ru, tr, he, el, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jony Rosenne <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <000501c3ce8d$bc6f7ec0$0401c80a@QSM4>
In-Reply-To: <000501c3ce8d$bc6f7ec0$0401c80a@QSM4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1116
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: peterkirk@qaya.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBUMlN822339
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 29/12/2003 20:30, Jony Rosenne wrote:

>Not exactly. Modern Hebrew does not use finals for foreign words ending =
with
>the P sound, such as Phillip, and for some acronyms.
>
>Jony
>
> =20
>
I have realised that Tanakh is written
=D7=AA=D7=A0=D7=B4=D7=9A
not
=D7=AA=D7=A0=D7=B4=D7=9B
(i.e. with a final kaf at the end of the acronym, though not a final=20
nun). So it is by no means universal that acronyms use non-final forms,=20
even in modern usage.

--=20
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






From - Wed Dec 31 03:45:05 2003
X-UIDL: e9f0f0fccbab6d649462bf38512a4c53
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:06:59 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbSx0-0006Tb-4F
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:06:58 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUN0V822542;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:00:32 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:00:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [216.104.160.39])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUN0V822536
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:00:31 -0500
Received: from localhost.daemonmail.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1])
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA44947
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:59:34 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Received: from [212.235.71.211] (via account qsm.co.il)
	by mx-out.daemonmail.net with ESMTP id yfB0UkH2
	authenticated by POP; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:58:59 -0700 (PST)
From: "Jony Rosenne" <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
To: <hebrew@unicode.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:58:56 +0200
Message-ID: <000301c3cf28$94176af0$0401c80a@QSM4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1255"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
In-Reply-To: <3FF20042.9040609@qaya.org>
Importance: Normal
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by unicode.org id hBUN0V822536
X-archive-position: 1117
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: rosennej@qsm.co.il
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBUN0V822542
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

As a general rule, if it is pronounced as a word, finals are used, otherw=
ise
not.

Jony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peterkirk@qaya.org]=20
> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 12:46 AM
> To: Jony Rosenne
> Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
> Subject: Re: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
>=20
>=20
> On 29/12/2003 20:30, Jony Rosenne wrote:
>=20
> >Not exactly. Modern Hebrew does not use finals for foreign=20
> words ending=20
> >with the P sound, such as Phillip, and for some acronyms.
> >
> >Jony
> >
> > =20
> >
> I have realised that Tanakh is written
> =FA=F0=D8=EA
> not
> =FA=F0=D8=EB
> (i.e. with a final kaf at the end of the acronym, though not a final=20
> nun). So it is by no means universal that acronyms use=20
> non-final forms,=20
> even in modern usage.
>=20
> --=20
> Peter Kirk
> peter@qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>=20
>=20
>=20






From - Wed Dec 31 03:45:07 2003
X-UIDL: 1f1cf4a589e26fd1b4d6a15ff3a4bf83
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:23:50 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbTDH-0006pE-2Y
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:23:47 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUNKw824621;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:20:58 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:20:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mwinf0401.wanadoo.fr (smtp4.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.27])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUNKv824615
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:20:57 -0500
Received: from asimov (ARennes-201-1-3-240.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.147.240])
	by mwinf0401.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP
	id 39CB55800099; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:20:50 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <00bd01c3cf2b$a13208a0$2101a8c0@rodage.dyndns.org>
Reply-To: "Philippe Verdy" <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>
From: "Philippe Verdy" <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>
To: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk@qaya.org>, "Jony Rosenne" <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
Cc: <hebrew@unicode.org>
References: <000501c3ce8d$bc6f7ec0$0401c80a@QSM4> <3FF20042.9040609@qaya.org>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:21:18 +0100
Organization: Ordinateur Personnel
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-archive-position: 1118
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: verdy_p@wanadoo.fr
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

On 29/12/2003 20:30, Jony Rosenne wrote:

>Not exactly. Modern Hebrew does not use finals for foreign words ending
with
>the P sound, such as Phillip, and for some acronyms.

Sorry to importunate you about this PE vs. FINAL PE rule in Hebrew, but:

What would be the rule to transliterate my first name Philippe, that uses a
silent final e, and is then pronounced with a final P _sound_ ? Will Hebrew
write it with a final PE or a non-final PE, given that the original Latin
orthograph uses a final vowel which is still not written in Hebrew, or noted
with something like an apostrophe for a missing unpronounced letter?

This may seem stupid, but not all Hebrew readers may be able to read the
Latin text, and there exists some transliteration schemes that are used
officially within translations where transliteration is needed but only
acceptable if it respects the original name (for example when listing
bibliographic references, or citing trademarks, or when using toponomic
names on geographic maps, or in phone diaries).





From - Wed Dec 31 03:45:18 2003
X-UIDL: d0160e59a78d3b916fbd1e7343d04156
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:25:21 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbW2x-0002Bl-IO
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:25:19 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBV2KY808525;
	Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:20:34 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:20:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pi.meson.org (h-66-134-26-207.NYCMNY83.covad.net [66.134.26.207])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id hBV2KW808519
	for <hebrew@unicode.org>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:20:33 -0500
Received: (qmail 29781 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2003 02:20:26 -0000
Received: from dhcp1.lan.lupine.org (HELO kli.org) (@192.168.1.101)
  by 192.168.1.100 with SMTP; 31 Dec 2003 02:20:26 -0000
Message-ID: <3FF23268.8050608@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:20:24 -0500
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jony Rosenne <rosennej@qsm.co.il>
CC: hebrew@unicode.org
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
References: <000301c3cf28$94176af0$0401c80a@QSM4>
In-Reply-To: <000301c3cf28$94176af0$0401c80a@QSM4>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.3.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1119
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: mark@kli.org
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by unicode.org id hBV2KY808525
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

Similarly, when treated as a normal word and made into an adjective=20
("Biblical"), the normal behavior asserts itself, and the final kaf goes=20
non-final again: =D7=AA=D7=A0=D7=B4=D7=9B=D7=99 (that right, Jony?  It's =
what I recall).  I guess=20
it's a little like the way English acronyms that are pronounced as words=20
(laser, radar, scuba...) soon lose their all-caps writing.

~mark

On 12/30/03 17:58, Jony Rosenne wrote:

>As a general rule, if it is pronounced as a word, finals are used, other=
wise
>not.
>
>Jony
>
> =20
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peterkirk@qaya.org]=20
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 12:46 AM
>>To: Jony Rosenne
>>Cc: hebrew@unicode.org
>>Subject: Re: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script
>>
>>
>>On 29/12/2003 20:30, Jony Rosenne wrote:
>>
>>   =20
>>
>>>Not exactly. Modern Hebrew does not use finals for foreign=20
>>>     =20
>>>
>>words ending=20
>>   =20
>>
>>>with the P sound, such as Phillip, and for some acronyms.
>>>
>>>Jony
>>>
>>>=20
>>>
>>>     =20
>>>
>>I have realised that Tanakh is written
>>=D7=AA=D7=A0=D7=B4=D7=9A
>>not
>>=D7=AA=D7=A0=D7=B4=D7=9B
>>(i.e. with a final kaf at the end of the acronym, though not a final=20
>>nun). So it is by no means universal that acronyms use=20
>>non-final forms,=20
>>even in modern usage.
>>
>>--=20
>>Peter Kirk
>>peter@qaya.org (personal)
>>peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
>>http://www.qaya.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>   =20
>>
>
>
> =20
>





From - Wed Dec 31 03:45:23 2003
X-UIDL: 8d9b362552613b9c527b167dc1344636
X-Mozilla-Status: 0201
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <hebrew-bounce@unicode.org>
Envelope-to: peterkirk@qaya.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:01:47 +0000
Received: from [209.235.17.55] (helo=unicode.org)
	by ns3.eukhost.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24)
	id 1AbbIU-0000ig-DM
	for peterkirk@qaya.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:01:42 +0000
Received: from sarasvati.unicode.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBV7oL832597;
	Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:50:21 -0500
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list hebrew); Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:50:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from priv-edtnes12-hme0.telusplanet.net (outbound03.telus.net [199.185.220.222])
	by unicode.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBV7oF832591;
	Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:50:20 -0500
Received: from Sophia.tiro.com ([66.183.172.245])
          by priv-edtnes12-hme0.telusplanet.net
          (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP
          id <20031231074937.TKIC17959.priv-edtnes12-hme0.telusplanet.net@Sophia.tiro.com>;
          Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:49:37 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230234149.03ce4c38@pop3.portal.ca>
X-Sender: tiro@pop3.portal.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:49:17 -0800
To: Peter Kirk <peterkirk@qaya.org>
From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Subject: [hebrew] Re: Ligatures with diacritics (was: Ancient Northwest Semitic
  Script)
Cc: hebrew@unicode.org, Unicode List <unicode@unicode.org>
In-Reply-To: <3FF1EA6C.6090605@qaya.org>
References: <5.2.1.1.1.20031230113854.03101d90@pop3.portal.ca>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca>
 <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
 <3FEF4814.1060402@smrtytrek.com>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031230104139.02da4f50@pop3.portal.ca>
 <5.2.1.1.1.20031230113854.03101d90@pop3.portal.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-archive-position: 1120
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
Errors-to: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org
X-original-sender: tiro@tiro.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: hebrew
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean

At 01:13 PM 12/30/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:

>But if it were, this ligature would be very interesting and problematic 
>because it is a ligature between a base character and a diacritic. This is 
>not a problem if it is always used, in a particular font, but it is 
>problematic if the ligature is optional. This is because ZWNJ and ZWJ 
>cannot be used between base characters and diacritics because they break 
>the combining sequence. We came across this problem before with Hebrew 
>script, but in a rather different (and less ambiguous) context, that of 
>the need for a ligature between meteg and hataf vowels.

We should probably be careful to distinguish between ligation explicitly 
requested in text using ZWJ -- which is very much a minority case -- and 
ligation that occurs as either default rendering or as the result of a 
higher level font feature request. There are lots of ligatures of bases and 
marks in lots of fonts: ligation is one possible method of rendering any 
sequence of base plus mark(s), and in some cases if preferable to dynamic 
mark positioning.

>OpenType etc fonts are currently able to make these distinctions 
>consistently, with the mechanisms John described above; but these 
>mechanisms fail if there is a need for the ligature to be optional, as 
>ZWNJ and ZWJ cannot be used.

Again, there is the question of whether an optional ligation needs to be 
requested or inhibited in plain text, using these control characters, or 
can be handled at a higher level using markup. In OT rendering, only 
lookups in the Required Ligatures <rlig> feature cannot be turned off, so 
one would put optional ligatures in the Standard Ligatures <liga> feature 
if you wanted them on by default, or in the Discretionary Ligatures <dlig> 
feature if you wanted them off by default.

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_





