At 01:13 PM 12/30/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
But if it were, this ligature would be very interesting and problematic
because it is a ligature between a base character and a diacritic. This is
not a problem if it is always used, in a particular font, but it is
problematic if the ligature is optiona
> I wonder if there are other, better defined, cases of ligatures between
> base characters and diacritics in other scripts, i.e. cases where there
> is an optional alternative to base character plus diacritic which does
> not look like the base character plus the diacritic.
Devangari?
Sylla
On 30/12/2003 11:44, John Hudson wrote:
At 11:15 AM 12/30/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
Even if it were verified, it isn't a good case for encoding a
separate character *equivalent* to a combination of two existing
characters: that's a glyph variant ligature.
Actually, I don't think so. The separat
At 03:34 PM 12/28/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a glyph
distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in the
"serech" example
(http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of what is
undoubtedly (in Unico
At 06:55 -0800 2003-12-29, Peter Kirk wrote:
Yes, this is true at least of Azerbaijani, which mapped Cyrillic
glyphs to Latin ones one-to-one. But with Serbo-Croat we are talking
of two separate communities which prefer to use separate scripts for
what is essentially the same language; and with
Peter Kirk wrote:
Jim, you seem to be almost contradicting yourself here. In fact it is by
no means certain that there were separate Hebrew and Phoenician
languages at the time of the Gezer calendar (9th century BCE? - from
memory). At least they may have been no more different than British and
Am
On 29/12/2003 09:32, Jim Allan wrote:
...
Difference of language means there isn't much use in doing
cross-searches between material written in Phoenician and material
written in Greek. The same is not true about cross-searching material
written in any northwest Semitic language. The languages
D. Starner wrote:
Intra-script, a difference in appearance has call for seperate codings.
Inter-script, if the appearance is dissimilar enough to be a bar to
reading, and there's a disjoint population of users (so that one is
not a handwriting or cipher variant of another), there is reason to
enco
At 07:39 AM 12/29/2003, Michael Everson wrote:
I also think that your attitude is that of a Hellenist or
Indo-Europeanist, who looks at everything from the perspective of Athens.
Think what you like.
Semitics is "Praeparatio Hellenika"--its other aspects are less
important, and
hence not to be
I don't really see this either, but even if it's correct, aren't
Hellenists and Indo-Europeanists supposed to be supported by Unicode
too? Maybe that's the elusive user-base?
~mark
On 12/29/03 10:39, Michael Everson wrote:
At 06:40 -0800 2003-12-29, Elaine Keown wrote:
I also think that your
At 06:40 -0800 2003-12-29, Elaine Keown wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
> And the mother of those scripts is Phoenician. She is *not* Hebrew.
The mother script is probably the southern Sinai or Wadi el-Hol
script, written in about 1,700 B.C.E. by Aramaeans who worked either
in the copper mines of
Elaine Keown
still in Texas
Hi,
The core issue in all this is how to apply the Unicode
character/glyph model to an old 22-letter alphabet
with (most likely) a 3,700 year history.
Personalities and sniping aside, that is the central
issue.
And I suspect that this 22-letter
On 28/12/2003 20:47, D. Starner wrote:
...
Intra-script, a difference in appearance has call for seperate codings.
Inter-script, if the appearance is dissimilar enough to be a bar to
reading, and there's a disjoint population of users (so that one is
not a handwriting or cipher variant of another
Elaine Keown
still in Texas
Dear Michael Everson and Lists:
Michael Everson wrote:
> And the mother of those scripts is Phoenician. She
is
> *not* Hebrew.
The mother script is probably the southern Sinai or
Wadi el-Hol script, written in about 1,700 B.C.E. by
Aramaeans who
Jim Allan wrote at 4:16 PM on Sunday, December 28, 2003:
>James Kass wrote on using variation selectors for fine glyph variations:
>
>> So, that approach might meet epigraphers' needs while enabling
>> painless cross-variant searching, and still permit scholars to
>> get on with encoding their tex
ï
- Message d'origine -
De: "D. Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Indeed, by
the same argument, we could encode a lot of scripts> together. ISCII did
it for Indic scripts. I'm sure we could do> some serious merging among
syllabic scripts - 12A8(ከ) is the same> as
13A7(Ꭷ)
I understan
As to harm, where's the harm in encoding Japanese kanzi separately, or
Latin uncial, or a complete set of small capitals as a third case?
Where's the harm in encoding Latin Renaissance scripts separately?
Spell checking, for one. Should you use T-cedilla or T-comma for Romanian?
What if your keyb
On 12/28/03 18:34, Peter Kirk wrote:
It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a glyph
distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in the
"serech" example
(http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of
what is undoubtedly (in Unicode te
On 28/12/2003 13:16, Jim Allan wrote:
...
For an example of what might be needed, see Rochelle I. S. Altman's
discussion "Some Aspects of Older Writing Systems: With Focus on the
DSS" at
http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/Altman99.shtml :
Altman indicates how differences in lig
James Kass wrote on using variation selectors for fine glyph variations:
So, that approach might meet epigraphers' needs while enabling
painless cross-variant searching, and still permit scholars to
get on with encoding their texts as they see fit.
For an example of what might be needed, see Roch
Elaine Keown
Dear Christopher John Fynn:
> > they had different opinions at Harvard and at
> > UChicago. I
> How about in European and Middle Eastern
> Universities?
I didn't have the motivation to pursue the earlier
material because there were only tiny scraps of text
and they w
.
Peter Kirk wrote,
> Perhaps we should have a special block of "Epigraphical Alphanumeric
> Symbols", to go with the "Mathematical...", for which epigraphers can
> propose all manner of glyph variants which they might find useful, while
> the rest of us ignore these blocks get on with encoding
Elaine Keown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have only heard that they had
> different opinions at Harvard and at UChicago. I
> don't know (sorry) how these texts are viewed at Johns
> Hopkins.
How about in European and Middle Eastern Universities?
On 27/12/2003 03:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Practitioners of many sciences need Unicode in order to store and exchange
information. Mathematicians have successfully encoded what are essentially
Latin glyph variants separately for usage as math variables in Plane One,
including Fraktur a
At 13:36 -0500 2003-12-27, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
I remain convinced, however, that suggestion that Phoenician be
unified with Hebrew and Phoenician is ridiculous in the extreme,
and I will oppose it absolutely. Likewise, it is clear that
Samaritan is also not to be unified
Michael Everson scripsit:
> I remain convinced, however, that suggestion
> that Phoenician be unified with Hebrew and Phoenician is ridiculous
> in the extreme, and I will oppose it absolutely. Likewise, it is
> clear that Samaritan is also not to be unified with Hebrew.
There's clearly a sl
At 11:20 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote:
But my main objection is that you have ALREADY made up your mind
about Phoenician and Hebrew, categorically and emphatically
declaring that there is "zero chance" that they will be considered
glyphic variants of one another.
I'm sorry you object. I
Dean
Thanks for your reply
It seems that you consider encoding characters to handle epigraphic needs
acceptable.
EPIDAURAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL TWO (2 dots) and THESPIAN ACROPHONIC SYMBOL TWO
(crooked line) seem to have the same underlying meaning - and I don't see any
semantic difference betwee
our, the author's, name; and yet it is YOUR opinions about
disunification of the ancient Northwest Semitic script which have come
under scrutiny here. Therefore your authorship of that document is
material information in this discussion.
Aside from that, there still remain the substantive que
Christopher John Fynn wrote at 12:53 PM on Saturday, December 27, 2003:
>Dean Snyder wrote:
>
>> So Unicode is now prepared to provide support,
>> in plain text, for the needs of paleographers?
>
>What would you call these
>http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2612/n2612-3.pdf ?
Characters
Dean Snyder wrote:
> So Unicode is now prepared to provide support,
> in plain text, for the needs of paleographers?
What would you call these
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2612/n2612-3.pdf ?
which have been accepted
[http://std.dug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2623.pdf page 46]
- Chris
At 00:36 -0500 2003-12-27, Dean Snyder wrote:
This document by Michael Everson is particularly revealing and in the end
damning to his whole attempt at disunification of the Northwest Semitic
script.
I am not interested in participating in this kind of discourse. This
is not "Michael Everson vs t
.
Dean Snyder wrote,
>
> >But, in either case it is hoped that the needs of script
> >taxonomists and paleographers won't be disregarded.
>
> So Unicode is now prepared to provide support, in plain text, for the
> needs of paleographers?
>
Practitioners of many sciences need Unicode in order to
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Dean Snyder wrote:
> Furthermore, I would venture to say that Unicode encoders met extensive,
> entrenched opposition by Chinese, Japanese, and Korean scholars in the
> effort to unify CJK, which makes it all the more striking that NOW it is
You're indeed venturing to say t
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
This is a particularly cogent point. The Mishna (c. 1st century C.E.)
does explicitly distinguish between Paleo-Hebrew and Square Hebrew
(tractate Yadayim 4:5). That's not a font-difference, that's a
script-difference, I think.
There were no such things as fonts in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 3:25 AM on Saturday, December 27, 2003:
>(smile) If you're referring to "Old Italic", it's in Plane One.
No. I'm referring to Latin.
>Besides, would it be fair to say that many
>paleographers and script taxonomists have been interested in computer
>encoding all along
.
Dean Snyder responded to Michael Everson,
> Sounds very similar to the development of the Latin script variants,
> doesn't it?
>
Aren't there many common threads in the development of writing
systems?
> >>Should Latin be separately encoded?
> >
> >Latin *has* been separately encoded.
>
>Not
At 06:57 AM 12/26/2003, Michael Everson wrote:
Every historian of writing describes the various scripts *as* scripts, and
recognizes them differently. We have bilinguals where people are
distinguishing the scripts in text; we have discussion, for instance in
the Babylonian Talmud, specifically
her case do they use the word
"script" with that meaning invested in it by Unicodists.
Furthermore, I would venture to say that Unicode encoders met extensive,
entrenched opposition by Chinese, Japanese, and Korean scholars in the
effort to unify CJK, which makes it all the more striking that
> I guess we'd just have to make sure that
> people doing scholarly work in Semitic languages know to use Hebrew all
> the time (they already know that), no matter what the language.
؟
On 12/26/03 09:57, Michael Everson wrote:
Every historian of writing describes the various scripts *as* scripts,
and recognizes them differently. We have bilinguals where people are
distinguishing the scripts in text; we have discussion, for instance
in the Babylonian Talmud, specifically discu
Elaine Keown
still in Texas
Dear Michael Everson, Dean Snyder, and Lists:
I am grateful that Michael Everson chose to share his
thinking (and, I guess, that of Rick McGowan and Ken
Whistler) on Semitic alphabet(s) with us. I had been
wondering for a long time where the Roadmap ideas
At 02:23 -0500 2003-12-26, Dean Snyder wrote:
If you are thinking of chronology and mean that Phoenician came
first, most scholars would agree with you.
I too am a scholar, Dean.
But I would ask, so what? What does chronological priority have to
do with establishing separate encodings?
The sour
NORTHWEST SEMITIC ALEPH", etc. (The actual name needs to be
finessed because Ugaritic is a Northwest Semitic language but uses a
different script system.)
3) Separately encode the ancient Northwest Semitic script.
It isn't strictly Uniocdesque (because the characters are in fact already
enco
44 matches
Mail list logo
