Peter, you and I have been through this issue before (on this list, I believe). I'm personally inclined to agree with Sokoloff that producing Syriac script is desirable in an Aramaic lexicon, if not also in a Hebrew one. But I'm not sure that the editors of HALOT, for instance, share this sentiment. They transcribe comparative evidence everywhere in Latin except where square script is appropriate. Perhaps it was ony because of the lead type issue, but I suspect that it was also the desire to make the material *appear* less opaque to those untrained in these languages. This desire will probably remain a factor in publishing, regardless of where technology goes. Fortunately for this discussion, Syriac and Arabic are already established in Unicode. I would not generally advocate the use of script fonts for epigraphic material, but I consider manuscript traditions another matter.Well, personally I would be opposed to use of alphabets other than Hebrew and Latin in a Hebrew-English dictionary. Users of a dictionary should not be presumed to know languages or their scripts other than the dictionary's source and target languages and their scripts. I find the Syriac and Ethiopic forms in BDB annoying, though I can manage the Arabic ones. Similarly, in a paper discussing languages X and Y, it may be appropriate to set material in the scripts of languages X and Y as well as in the script of the main text of the paper, but the different script of language Z should not normally be used, in my opinion. I hope that the Unicode support for multiple scripts doesn't lead to scholars and typesetters showing off their abilities at the expense of the end user.
Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.