scripts (Samaritan Hebrew cursive for regular prayers, including their translations; Samaritan Hebrew formal for elevated parts of prayers, including their translation; and Arabic script for paratexts like headings and instructions, monolingual). As in the Biblical manuscripts surveyed above, allography
and there is no other normative way to write CPA . Rather, it can be considered an adaptation of the Syriac script with one additional grapheme, ܧ. The grapheme is a reversal of Syriac p , ܦ. ⸢As Syriac is rich in allography—each grapheme can have up to four allographs, initial, medial
poetry. Obviously there is no unambiguously clear answer why the Melkites took recourse to allography in these cases. Considering the variety of allographic modes, the explanatory model that the insistence of a certain group on using only the script of a specific sacred language, not the language itself
In the multi-lingual world of the Cairo Genizah, Arabic (including Judaeo-Arabic), Hebrew and Aramaic were used in legal documents and letters. Jewish scribes excelled in Hebrew and Arabic penmanship. The mixing of Hebrew and Arabic alphabets in documents by particular writers affords important sociolinguistic insights. This article presents case studies of two Genizah writers, Daniel b. ʿAzaryah (11th century) and Ḥalfon b. Manasse (12th century), who were both highly innovative and exceptional in their use of scripts and vocalisation signs. Their scribal habits and decisions allow us to understand attitudes of writers towards the two scripts, and levels of literacy within the Jewish scriptorium, and provide an important contribution to our understanding of medieval allography and script-switching.
scripts). The search for an all-encompassing technical term led scholars to two, albeit quite different, terms, both of which were used in the two earlier publications mentioned above: allography and garshunography . The former appeared as a convenient term in the subtitle of the collection edited by J
archival norms or concerns pertaining to antiquity, there are no criteria by which one can distinguish between allography and any other writing. And there is no reason why one should take Armeno-Turkish, Hebrew-Turkish, or Karamanlidika-Turkish in Armenian, Hebrew and Greek letters—to be rather more
text. However, Huilin tizhi straddles the boundary between primary and secondary, between inside and outside.
No doubt, Huilin tizhi is an unusual publication. In a rather simplified characterization, it can be considered a literary collection of paratexts and allography which penetrates
cases of allography or homography. A graph could represent more than one speech sound, e.g. Mon graphs ṣ and s spellings as in kṣīw, pṣuk, kusīw, suk infer one sound /s/. On the other hand, a speech sound could also be represented by more than one graph, e.g. Mon cap as an alternant of cup, cip