Old Hungarian font
Now that Old Hungarian is encoded in Unicode, is anyone aware of a font (freely available or not) that supports it, or of plans by anyone to develop one? I'm not looking for a font that maps OH to the ASCII range, such as the original Csenge. I've already tried the major search engines and the well-known font pages, such as Alan Wood and SIL and Wazu Japan. Please send a link only if you've already confirmed there is an OH font there. Thanks, -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO
Old Hungarian
Today I was alerted: N4222 http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n4222.pdf Response to the N4917 about the Rovas Script And so here we go again, yet another salvo in the ongoing battle over the correct English-language name of the script, over how many such scripts there actually are, over its/their historic origin, and over the professional credentials of the experts on either side of the debate. Frankly, it's very disappointing to see the encoding of this fascinating and historic writing system be delayed for so many years due to this kind of squabbling. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
Re: Old Hungarian
Frankly, it's very disappointing to see the encoding of this fascinating and historic writing system be delayed for so many years due to this kind of squabbling. Doug, I, as a user of Old Hungarian have started a discussion on the possible encoding of the script which eventually lead here, back in early 2008. That was four years ago. Are you sure that you are the most dissapointed? :) Á
Re: Old Hungarian
No, I'm not at all sure of that. I'm also probably less disappointed than Michael, who wrote the first draft proposal for Old Hungarian (N1686) more than fourteen years ago. But now it's disappointing to us outsiders as well. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell -Original Message- From: Joó Ádám Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2012 17:11 To: Doug Ewell Cc: unicode@unicode.org Subject: Re: Old Hungarian Frankly, it's very disappointing to see the encoding of this fascinating and historic writing system be delayed for so many years due to this kind of squabbling. Doug, I, as a user of Old Hungarian have started a discussion on the possible encoding of the script which eventually lead here, back in early 2008. That was four years ago. Are you sure that you are the most dissapointed? :) Á
Re: letter names for Old Hungarian Runes
busmanus wrote: Doug Ewell wrote: I can send Mr. Everson the relevant sections with an English translation from these webpages if he needs them, but it would be to long to send it all to the list. They might well be helpful for determining the best names. Don't expect anything two serious though. Also, I'll be quite busy the following days, but I hope it isn't very urgent before July 3 anyway. I can probably send the promised translations this week. Can I send them to Michael Everson's private address before July 3? Where shall I send them? Who else may want to read them? Regards, Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol. Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu
Re: letter names for Old Hungarian Runes
Doug Ewell wrote: This insecurity Probably more like uncertainty, but anyway: Oh no, I'd been thinking for ages to recall the correct word... I can send Mr. Everson the relevant sections with an English translation from these webpages if he needs them, but it would be to long to send it all to the list. They might well be helpful for determining the best names. Don't expect anything two serious though. Also, I'll be quite busy the following days, but I hope it isn't very urgent before July 3 anyway. You really do want to read N1686 in conjunction with N1758: http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n1686/n1686.htm I'll check it out. I must admit, that your reply makes it clear that most of what I wrote about was already considered at least, even if not solved in every case. Actually, I just wanted to help out a little in what seemed to be a communication problem to a large extent. I'm not an expert of the Hungarian Runic System. Anyway, if I have something more material to contribute (besides the translations I promised), I'll write again. And a question: can UTF-8 encoding be used in all the messages sent to the list? Regards Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol. Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu
Re: letter names for Old Hungarian Runes
D. Starner shalesller at writeme dot com wrote: The good thing is that character names are not prescriptive. What a character ends up being called does not influence or restrict its potential usage. Why do you think that's true? People use characters all the time based on their names. The fact that Unicode doesn't change them after encoding makes it all the more important to name them right in the first place. I hope nobody's using U+01A2 and U+01A3 to mean OI, even if that is their name, or letting the name prevent them from using them to mean GHA. Yes, we should get character names right. But getting them wrong doesn't mean the character cannot be used for its intended purpose. AS was listed as a ligature in the earlier proposal, N1686. That would be incorrect if modern users consider it a letter. Important questions like this, and the need to settle them, are probably why Old Hungarian has been set aside for the past 6 years rather than being encoded as is. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Re: letter names for Old Hungarian Runes
I'll try to respond to this, since Michael is probably quite busy with the just-concluded meeting in Toronto, and since I'm interested in Old Hungarian as well. Please draw Michael Everson's attention to this message, it may be helpful for clearing up some issues about proposed Old Hungarian Runes, of which he seems to be in charge. He wrote the proposal documents, N1686 and N1758, if that makes him in charge of them. His draft about the topic http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1758.pdf says, that the spelling of character names for the proposed script still needs to be determined, and two alternatives are presented, one prefixes the names of most consonants with a letter e, the other reflects the letter names of the Latin-based Modern Hungarian alphabet, usually with a following vowel. This insecurity Probably more like uncertainty, but anyway: seems to arise from the rather confusing English explanations about letter names on webpages, like http://fang.fa.gau.hu/~heves/runic.html But if one is able to read the Hungarian sections of the same website, like http://fang.fa.gau.hu/~heves/szabalyok.html http://fang.fa.gau.hu/~heves/abc/abc.html it becomes evident, that Hungarian Runes, besides being alphabetic signs in the first place, may also be used as syllabics in order to save space, in which case the forms with a _preceding_ vowel are used. This also accounts for having the parallel letters OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER EK and OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER AK and also OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER ES and OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER AS The good thing is that character names are not prescriptive. What a character ends up being called does not influence or restrict its potential usage. (Actually, by some mistake the latter seems to be absent from the present proposal. I hope these data are a convincing argument, that it is actually necessary to include it. A .gif of the letter form (as.gif) is accessible on the page http://fang.fa.gau.hu/~heves/abc/abc.html ) AS was listed as a ligature in the earlier proposal, N1686. The later document, N1758, proposed removing all the precomposed ligatures and encoding them with sequences of letters instead. This led to an interesting discussion in which Michael proposed a Zero-Width Ligator character, a role that was eventually assigned to U+200D ZERO WIDTH JOINER (though some apparently still feel ligation is a font and application issue rather than a character encoding issue). Bear in mind that N1686 and N1758 are more than six years old. There have been no new proposals or other documents on rovsrs since 1998, probably because additional research would require additional money that is not currently available. Contributions to the Script Encoding Initiative http://www.unicode.org/sei/ might help alleviate this problem. On the other hand, the names following the Modern Hungarian pattern are only a kind of a shorthand, and have no claim to be part of the Hungarian Runic writing system. (At least that's what the sites quoted suggest.) I can send Mr. Everson the relevant sections with an English translation from these webpages if he needs them, but it would be to long to send it all to the list. They might well be helpful for determining the best names. One more remark about letter names: The long-vowel counterparts of the Umlaut letters OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER OE and OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER UE are distinguished in the proposal by doubling the second letter of the digraph (OEE and UEE). It would blend better with Hungarian spelling conventions and would probably be more straitforward to decipher, if this was done by doubling the first element (OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER OOE and OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER UUE), like in standard Hungarian compound letters (e.g. cs (pron. ch, like in cheese), when pronounced long, would be written ccs). This latter problem is of a different nature though, and of relatively minor importance. Again, this might be useful for determining the best names for these letters. Another remark about directionality: Mr. Everson writes, that the impression I get is that the scholars are used to LTR because it has been practical to implement on computers and is less troublesome to read for people used to reading the Latin script - but it seems that those particular needs should be met with the directional overrides. This wording is not completely accurate, because glyph shapes should also be mirrorred along the vertical axis, depending on the writing direction. Use of directional overrides often does imply mirroring of glyph shapes. This is true for Old Italic, for example. Note that Michael wrote in N1686, The glyphs presented in the tables below are RTL glyphs; when LTR directionality is used (via UCS directional modifiers), the glyphs must be reversed. You really do want to read N1686 in conjunction with N1758: http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n1686/n1686.htm -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http
Re: letter names for Old Hungarian Runes
Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The good thing is that character names are not prescriptive. What a character ends up being called does not influence or restrict its potential usage. Why do you think that's true? People use characters all the time based on their names. The fact that Unicode doesn't change them after encoding makes it all the more important to name them right in the first place. (Actually, by some mistake the latter seems to be absent from the present proposal. I hope these data are a convincing argument, that it is actually necessary to include it. A .gif of the letter form (as.gif) is accessible on the page http://fang.fa.gau.hu/~heves/abc/abc.html ) AS was listed as a ligature in the earlier proposal, N1686. That would be incorrect if modern users consider it a letter. -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
letter names for Old Hungarian Runes
Dear List Members: Please draw Michael Everson's attention to this message, it may be helpful for clearing up some issues about proposed Old Hungarian Runes, of which he seems to be in charge. His draft about the topic http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1758.pdf says, that the spelling of character names for the proposed script still needs to be determined, and two alternatives are presented, one prefixes the names of most consonants with a letter e, the other reflects the letter names of the Latin-based Modern Hungarian alphabet, usually with a following vowel. This insecurity seems to arise from the rather confusing English explanations about letter names on webpages, like http://fang.fa.gau.hu/~heves/runic.html But if one is able to read the Hungarian sections of the same website, like http://fang.fa.gau.hu/~heves/szabalyok.html http://fang.fa.gau.hu/~heves/abc/abc.html it becomes evident, that Hungarian Runes, besides being alphabetic signs in the first place, may also be used as syllabics in order to save space, in which case the forms with a _preceding_ vowel are used. This also accounts for having the parallel letters OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER EK and OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER AK and also OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER ES and OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER AS (Actually, by some mistake the latter seems to be absent from the present proposal. I hope these data are a convincing argument, that it is actually necessary to include it. A .gif of the letter form (as.gif) is accessible on the page http://fang.fa.gau.hu/~heves/abc/abc.html ) On the other hand, the names following the Modern Hungarian pattern are only a kind of a shorthand, and have no claim to be part of the Hungarian Runic writing system. (At least that's what the sites quoted suggest.) I can send Mr. Everson the relevant sections with an English translation from these webpages if he needs them, but it would be to long to send it all to the list. One more remark about letter names: The long-vowel counterparts of the Umlaut letters OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER OE and OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER UE are distinguished in the proposal by doubling the second letter of the digraph (OEE and UEE). It would blend better with Hungarian spelling conventions and would probably be more straitforward to decipher, if this was done by doubling the first element (OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER OOE and OLD HUNGARIAN LETTER UUE), like in standard Hungarian compound letters (e.g. cs (pron. ch, like in cheese), when pronounced long, would be written ccs). This latter problem is of a different nature though, and of relatively minor importance. Another remark about directionality: Mr. Everson writes, that the impression I get is that the scholars are used to LTR because it has been practical to implement on computers and is less troublesome to read for people used to reading the Latin script but it seems that those particular needs should be met with the directional overrides. This wording is not completely accurate, because glyph shapes should also be mirrorred along the vertical axis, depending on the writing direction. Compare http://dsuper.net/~elehoczk/ and point 3. on http://www.geocities.com/rovasiras/betuk/ The latter one is in Hungarian again, I only quote it, because it claims to be more authoritative. Otherwise I also agree with Michael Everson in making Right-to-Left the default for Hungarian Runes, because I understand, that it is in a sense more authentic historically. Sorry for being so long, I was only trying to be systematic. Best Regards Miert fizetsz az internetert? Korlatlan, ingyenes internet hozzaferes a FreeStarttol. Probald ki most! http://www.freestart.hu
Re: Old Hungarian
At 01:14 -0500 2002-02-01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2002-01-31 20:20:33 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does anyone know if anything happened since the last proposal in 1988 to include Old Hungarian Actually 1998. But yes, I was wondering about the status of the rovásírás as well. The status is what you would expect. We had a core character set, but some users wanted explicit ligatures. I resisted that because ligation, while rare, is productive or at least unpredictable. Then a hiatus occurred because there were discussions about whether ZWJ could do the ligation. It turns out that it can, so that problem is solved. Another issue is whether the default directionality of the script should be LTR or RTL. I have not been pressing further on this script because of other commitments and lack of resources. Please see Unicode Technical Note #4 http://www.unicode.org/notes/tn4 for information about how you (all) can help. And it's tax deductible. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com 48B Gleann na Carraige; Cill Fhionntain; Baile Átha Cliath 13; Éire Telephone +353 86 807 9169 * * Fax +353 1 832 2189 (by arrangement)
Re: Old Hungarian
It has been pointed out to me that I ought to point people at the SEI initiative page at Berkeley: http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/~dwanders/ -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com 48B Gleann na Carraige; Cill Fhionntain; Baile Átha Cliath 13; Éire Telephone +353 86 807 9169 * * Fax +353 1 832 2189 (by arrangement)
Re: Old Hungarian?
Hungarian Runic is in the Roadmap. -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com 48B Gleann na Carraige; Cill Fhionntain; Baile Átha Cliath 13; Éire Telephone +353 86 807 9169 * * Fax +353 1 832 2189 (by arrangement)
Re: Old Hungarian?
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote: Hungarian Runic is in the Roadmap. What's the actual status, though? As Jarkko indicated, the proposal is almost 5 years old and it's been in the Roadmap ever since, with little or no progress since then (at least not visible from the outside). We know you may not have as much time as before to champion such proposals. Are any experts in the Hungarian user community (perhaps Hosszu Gábor or Fűr Zoltán) able to supply the needed final effort? Rovásírás is a delightful little script, with delightful RTL directionality (rare for a European script used as recently as 1483) and delightfully non-intuitive (sometimes bizarre) ligatures. It would be a shame if it couldn't get the support necessary for standardization in Unicode. BTW, I wonder if there might have been some confusion between the Pipeline, which generally contains only those characters proposed for the *next* version of Unicode, and the Roadmap, which contains a much broader range of proposed scripts, including some for which no formal proposal even exists. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
Old Hungarian?
You can look at http://www.unicode.org/unicode/alloc/Pipeline.html to see what's in the pipeline, but note that code points are not yet definite. There will be a beta period, beginning in January I believe. Whatever happened to Old Hungarian, aka Hungarian Runic, aka rovasiras? (sorry for missing diacritics) I can see a proposal by Mr Everson back in 1998 (http://wwwold.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n1686/n1686.htm, http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1758.pdf) but I cannot see it in the above pipeline.
Old Hungarian
Hi, Does anyone know if anything happened since the last proposal in 1988 to include Old Hungarian http://wwwold.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n1686/n1686.htm into Unicode? I plan to input text in Szekely Rovasiras, and I am about to make PUA code. Conversion from PUA would risk portability, if it will be finallly included... What are the chances that it will be included? Thanks gaspar
Re: Old Hungarian
In a message dated 2002-01-31 20:20:33 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does anyone know if anything happened since the last proposal in 1988 to include Old Hungarian Actually 1998. But yes, I was wondering about the status of the rovásírás as well. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
Old Hungarian
The Old Hungarian script (rovásírás) was proposed by Michael Everson in WG2 document N1686, dated 1998-01-18. Further information, including an amended code table, was provided in WG2 document N1758, dated 1998-05-02. The Unicode Web page on proposed new scripts http://www.unicode.org/pending/pending.html lists Old Hungarian as a proposed script that is being worked on by Unicode Technical Committee Working Groups. No further information is provided. The documents are now more than three years old. Does anyone have up-to-date information concerning the status of Old Hungarian in Unicode? Looking good, needs more work, not suitable for encoding? -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
