Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Terminus ad quem for non-revivalist Ogham and Runic (fwd)

From:John Cowan <jcowan@...>
Date:Friday, August 30, 2002, 19:35
Someone asked, several months back, about evidence for late use
of Runic and Ogham writing.   Here's what Michael Everson sent me
when I asked the Unicode list about it.

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:17:42 +0100
From: Michael Everson <everson@...>

At 21:52 -0400 2002-07-04, John Cowan wrote:
>The Unicode Standard (version 3.0, chapter 7) claims that Ogham and >Runic were still in non-revivalist use to the 16th and 19th centuries >respectively. Does anyone know where the evidence for these statements >was found?
Runic: Benneth, Solbritt, Jonas Ferenius, Helmer Gustavson, & Marit =C5hl=E9n.=20 1994. _Runm=E4rkt: fr=E5n brev till klotter. Runorna under medeltiden.=20 [Stockholm]: Carlsson Bokf=F8rlag. ISBN 91-7798-877-9 Ogham: Well, it depends on what you mean by non-revivalist. A=20 nineteenth-century manuscript in the Royal Irish Academy, Betham 23 M=20 11, contains a treatise on cryptographic Oghams which is of some=20 interest, and continues the ninth-century collection of secret Oghams=20 in the Book of Ballymote. In a sense, both of those manuscripts are=20 revivalist, since traditional Ogham carved on stone had its heyday in=20 the 5th to 7th centuries. So I am not sure what the Unicode standard=20 is referring to here. --=20 Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** -- John Cowan <jcowan@...> I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_