Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Michael Everson wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> > I do.
> :-)
> And would you be so kind to tell us where? (If the answer to this question
> is "I would", please proceed directly with the reference).
> _ Marco

Is there some way that messages from "qalam" could be identified in the
header? When I saw the improbable collocation of lexical items in the
header of the first message in this thread, I deleted it without opening
it because it was clearly a random-generator spam. (Then came replies
from the familiar names Everson and Cimarosti.)

BTW McManus in WWS says ogham "continued to be studied" down to the 17th
century -- that is, the tradition never died out and there was no
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...