Re: Fwd: Mayan numerals
Le 24/09/2012 20:16, Jameson Quinn a écrit : (Resend; last time bounced due to photo attachment) So, I see that this thread is heating up again, and a progress report is in order. [...] I've looked around a bit at ancient uses, insofar as that's easily available on the web. * In petroglyphs from the classic era, it is far more common to find the numbers incorporated into glyphs (such as date glyphs), with vertical bars. Also the cloverleaf zero is common in classic numbers, and often mixes in the same inscription with the shell zero. * In codices (postclassic), usage is more similar to modern. Vertical-barred numbers are still present in dates, but the naked horizontal-barred numbers, square-spaced numbers are common. I'm not enough of an expert to know how the text flow is working, but if I'm right that successive digits are alternating colors (red, black, red, black) then there are examples of both horizontal flow, vertical flow, and 2-by-2 vertical flow. Also, just as in modern usage, I haven't seen any cloverleaf zeros. * I've seen nothing to suggest to me that the face forms of the digits are ever mixed with the dots-and-bars forms. I believe that for ancient, and certainly for modern, purposes we can ignore the face forms. About the ancient use : those numerals have also been used in other mesoamerican scripts beyond the Maya script. as said here : http://www.ancientscripts.com/ma_ws.html . So I guess the numerals could be called mesoamerican rather than Mayan: * In the Zapotec script, described here http://www.ancientscripts.com/zapotec.html . You can clearly see some numerals (4 and 8) in the stelae 12 and 13 from Monte Albán : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monte_Alban_Stela_12_%26_13.jpg * The Epi-Olmec / Isthmian script, described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epi-Olmec_script and here http://www.ancientscripts.com/epiolmec.html . You have plenty of numerals in the few examples I found : o stella 6 from Cerro de Las Mesas, with Long Count date of 9.1.12.14.10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_de_las_Mesas o La Mojarra Stela 1 described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mojarra_Stela_1 . The Long copunt dates are easily seen here : http://www.ancientscripts.com/images/lamojarra.gif o a mask seen here : http://www.mesoweb.com/reports/isthmian_mask_back.html (you see a 9 close to the upper right corner) o The tuxtla statuette http://collections.mnh.si.edu/search/anth/?irn=8054511 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuxtla_Statuette , whwerw we see a long count date 8.6.3.4.17 and a vertical 8 o The stella C. at tres Zapotes, with a long count date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tres_Zapotes#Stela_C o A LaTeX package and a ad-hoc 8-bit fonts exists for Epi-Olmec. It is available here http://obelix.ee.duth.gr/~apostolo/Epi-Olmec/ and described here. * The Ñuiñe script, briefly mentioned in http://www.ancientscripts.com/ma_ws.html, where the examples given clearly show some numerals (10 and 11). As far as I understand, there is little agreement over the decipherment of any of these scripts, and there is probably a long time to wait before any of it is encoded in Unicode, but given the already encoded and planned undeciphered scripts (Phaistos disc and Linear A at least), I wouldn't be surprised to see one of these script being encoded before the well understood but complex Maya script. Your initial idea was already to make them multi-script (Maya + Latin), so adding a few script to your proposal shouldn't be a problem. It might even ease the situation, since we seem to be in a case similar to the Aegean Numbers (U+10100–U+1013F ), used in linear A and B. I'm not a specialist (at all !), but I would be surprised to find the complex behaviour of the numerals in the Maya script (which seem to scare Michael Everson) reproduced identically in all the above scripts. In particular, it seem absent from the Epi-Olmec/Isthmian script. * I'm enclosing a picture of the bills http://picpaste.com/billetes.jpg I happen to have around right now. There's one of every bill in current use (1,5,10,20,100,200) except the 50. As you can see (assuming this comes through on the list; otherwise, just google billetes quetzal), all 3 of the bills with a 0 use noticeably different variations of the shell zero glyph. The 20 and 100 have two stripes in their zeros, the 200 has four of them in its. (The 10 and 50, of course, have no zero in base 20) Good pictures of the bills (including the Q50 one ) can be found her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_quetzal#Banknotes . By the way, I recently saw a post from an associate professor of matematics looking at ancient number systems in (Xe)TeX. He says I’d love to be able to do something similar with the
Re: VS: Mayan numerals
Who knows, Jameson, but that some Unicoders may actually believe that delaying the encoding of Mayan means delaying the end of their world. :-) Scríobh 21/09/2012 20:35, Erkki I Kolehmainen: I fail to understand your strong attack on Unicode. Sincerely, Erkki One-line msgs such as the above (which Erkki cc:ed inappropriately to Irish groups outside his control) can no longer scare ordinary people into silence. On a personal note, I do understand that this is the worst-ever week in history for Finland-Ireland relations, but did not expect that negative political attitude to be reflected in that one-line unanticipated negative shot (above) sent in reply to an honest opinion, which makes me feel like discarding a summer headscarf I like(d), which I understood, the number of years ago I can not recall just now, to be a gift from Erkki (was I wrong about that!), with much-loved place-names on it. On a professional note, I repeat that NSAI (Ireland) will vote YES on this specific proposal, if given the chance to do so, despite negative pressure to the contrary from Unicode members, as broadcast by them on the unicode@unicode.org. Ireland is not taking any more blame for problems arising solely within Unicode, such as its continuing objection to encoding Mayan numerals. Please see portion of msg from Frédéric Grosshans quoted below, which supports Mr Quinn's case. Like Mr Grosshams, I do not pretend to fully understand Unicode's apparently abstruse decision-making process, only to know that other character sets I'd have thought less important have certainly been passed by Unicode members on the nod, as it were (i.e. without as much evidence as we have for Mayan numerals). This simple request to encode Mayan numerals has been delayed on so long as to look like a blockade, 14 full years have gone past since this issue was first considered by Unicode members, who summarily dismissed it without due process. Now that it is being re-considered by Unicode members, one can only hope that this time it is accorded due process with no more delay. That is, judged fairly on foot of Mr Quinn's detailed submission, as indicated. Proposals with far less merit and far less urgency than his have been proposed by Unicode agents and passed into sectoral standards with more haste and less skill. Ensuring an untrammelled vote in SC 2 on the specific merits of this specific proposal is the only thing of importance now. Scríobh 24/09/2012 19:16, Jameson Quinn: (Resend; last time bounced due to photo attachment) So, I see that this thread is heating up again, and a progress report is in order. * I still intend to present a proposal in the time frame I gave before: within this b'ak'tun (5000 year period... that is, by the end of the year). I have been looking for examples of use... Good. The more evidence the better, only don't be sidetracked into replying to delay-causing requests for more and yet more evidence when what I have already seen ought to be enough (your description of the user groups already feeling the pinch due to non-recognition by Unicode of their characters makes their case). As to the debate about whether these are worth encoding now, I certainly believe that the answer is yes. As others have said, whether or not you think it's probable that these modern characters will end up being usable in encoding ancient text, their usefulness now is in no doubt. No doubt at all. I believe you. You have my permission to use my name by way of reference to help convince others in standards circles with whom I have been working successfully for over twenty years, although that name mightn't do you much good in the other, smaller circles sometimes allowed to dominate this and related lists. :-) Anyway, you certainly seem to have already recruited good local and reputable academic support, which should be all that's needed, given a level playing field and no favours. Sincerely, mg Jameson Scríobh 26/09/2012 13:44, Frédéric Grosshans: Le 24/09/2012 20:16, Jameson Quinn a écrit : ... Good pictures of the bills (including the Q50 one ) can be found her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_quetzal#Banknotes . By the way, I recently saw a post from an associate professor of matematics looking at ancient number systems in (Xe)TeX. He says I’d love to be able to do something similar with the Mayan numbers. I tried for a while, but couldn’t get them to work. The reason of his failure is the lack of unicode encoding. http://divisbyzero.com/2012/08/30/ancient-number-systems-in-xetex/ Do people think I should include any of this investigation of ancient usage in my proposal? As you've probably guessed by now, I think you should... but I have no experience at all in the encoding process! ... -- Marion Gunn * eGteo (Estab.1991) 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an Bhóthair, An Charraig Dhubh, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire/Ireland. *
Re: Announcing The Unicode Standard, Version 6.2
BTW, if you want to share the announcement: - Google+: https://plus.sandbox.google.com/u/0/109412260435993059737/posts (I also reposted at with my personal accounthttps://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033 .) - Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-Unicode/127785250588285 - Twitter: http://twitter.com/unicode/ Mark ** On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:06 PM, announceme...@unicode.org wrote: ** Version 6.2 of the Unicode Standard is now available. This version adds only a single character, the newly adopted Turkish Lira sign; however, the properties and behaviors for many other characters have been adjusted. Emoji and pictographic symbols now have significantly improved line-breaking, word-breaking and grapheme cluster behaviors. The script categorizations for some characters are improved and better documented. The Unicode Collation Algorithm has been greatly enhanced for Version 6.2, with a major overhaul of its documentation. There have also been significant changes to the collation weight tables, including improved handling of tertiary weights for characters with decompositions, and changed weights for some pictographic symbols. The newly encoded Turkish Lira sign, like other currency symbols, is expected to be heavily used in its target environment. The Unicode Consortium accelerated the release of Unicode 6.2, to accommodate the urgent need for this character. For more details of this release, see http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/. TurkishLira75pct.jpg
RE: VS: Mayan numerals
Marion Gunn wrote: -Original Message- From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Marion Gunn Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:53 AM To: 'Unicode List' Subject: Re: VS: Mayan numerals ... This simple request to encode Mayan numerals has been delayed on so long as to look like a blockade, 14 full years have gone past since this issue was first considered by Unicode members, who summarily dismissed it without due process. Now that it is being re-considered by Unicode members, one can only hope that this time it is accorded due process with no more delay. That is, judged fairly on foot of Mr Quinn's detailed submission, as indicated. ... I have stayed out of this thread to date, but the above statement by Marion Gunn seems totally detached from any documentable history. There was some mention of Mayan script on the Unicode discussion list in 1998, but entirely in the context of a consideration of generic mechanisms for controlling the stacking of Egyptian hieroglyphs and a potentially similar issue for stacking elements of Mayan glyphs. There was no mention of Mayan numerals at the time. Likewise in 1997 and 1999. I looked. There *was* a brief mention of Mayan numerals in particular on the list on January 24, 2002, in a question raised by Jarkko Hietaniemi about what model might be used for their encoding. There were two short responses and one short followup by Jarkko. There was no summary dismissal of anything. But there was also no actual proposal forthcoming at the time to encode anything. I find no evidence whatsoever that a proposal to encode Mayan numerals has ever been submitted to the UTC. Nor do I find any evidence that such a document has ever been submitted to WG2 (in records dating back to WG2 Document N1), which would have had to occur for any actual proposal to move forward for character additions to ISO/IEC 10646. Any formal consideration by the UTC of any proposed character encoding is contingent upon the submission of an actual proposal to the UTC. The directions for doing so have been publicly available for over a decade now at http://www.unicode.org/pending/proposals.html And in the absence of such a proposal, it is simply wrong to imply that the UTC has ever dismissed a proposal to encode Mayan numerals. And due process for the UTC is defined at http://www.unicode.org/consortium/utc.html I would invite Ms. Gunn to submit actual evidence of a blockade against encoding Mayan numerals dating from 14 years ago, as I find myself completely puzzled as to what she is talking about. Is she perhaps referring to some non-public deliberations which may have taken place in the context of NSAI back in 1998? --Ken
