Discussion:
Character codes for Egyptian transliteration
Michael Everson
2003-08-21 10:14:39 UTC
Permalink
the sign used for aleph (looks like a 3, but isn't, obviously)
Not encoded yet.
the sign used for yod (looks like a i with a right ring tick above it)
Encoding not determined yet.
the sign used interchangeably for q (looks like a k with a dot beneath it)
U+1E33
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Paul James Cowie
2003-08-21 09:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Can anyone point me in the right direction for the codes for characters
commonly employed in ancient Egyptian transliteration (NB: not the
hieroglyphs themselves!) and based on Gardiner's Egyptian Grammar?

I'm thinking especially of the following:

the sign used for aleph (looks like a 3, but isn't, obviously)

the sign used for yod (looks like a i with a right ring tick above it)

the sign used interchangeably for q (looks like a k with a dot beneath
it)

Any help most gratefully received,

------------

Paul James Cowie

London, UK and Sydney, Australia

Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel
Committee Member, Friends of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology

PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
University, Sydney, Australia



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Peter Kirk
2003-08-21 12:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used for aleph (looks like a 3, but isn't, obviously)
Not encoded yet.
What are you using for ayin? If you are using U+02BF, you might consider
using U+02BE as an interim for aleph, and considering the glyph like a 3
as a typographic variant. U+02BE is commonly used for transliteration of
Hebrew alef as well as the phoentically similar Arabic hamza. Or maybe
you are using U+02BB or U+02BD (and yes, I know I am doing this in my
Hebrew issues document, but only because the other glyphs were not in
the font), not sure if you should be, in that case aleph would fit
better with U+02BC though I guess you wouldn't want to change the glyph
in your font as you don't want all your apostrophes looking like 3's.

But there is probably sufficient evidence on this one to justify adding
a character to Unicode. I have seen this 3 used for similar sounds in
other languages. And I (very far from an expert in Egyptian!) have
evidence in "How to read Egyptian hieroglyphs" by Collier & Manley. This
3 seems to be the only transliteration character in the book which is
not in Unicode.

While we are considering number-like transliteration symbols, something
rather like a 9 is commonly used for transliteration of Arabic ain and
similar sounds in other languages. So perhaps that could be included in
the same proposal.

Or would U+021D or U+025C be suitable for your 3?
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used for yod (looks like a i with a right ring tick above it)
Encoding not determined yet.
This one looks rather like U+1EC9 though I am not sure if the hook above
is quite the right shape for you. You might prefer a regular i followed
by U+0357 COMBINING RIGHT HALF RING ABOVE. Or maybe U+0313 would be
preferred, this is the Greek smooth breathing and looks like a comma.
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used interchangeably for q (looks like a k with a dot beneath it)
U+1E33
--
Peter Kirk
***@qaya.org (personal)
***@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
John Cowan
2003-08-21 15:25:31 UTC
Permalink
It would be great, though, to
have access to purpose-encoded characters for the conventional Egyptian
aleph (3) and yod (i with a half-ring) that don't rely on combinations
or workarounds.
I quite agree about the 3-like character (which for whatever reason is
ayin in the Semitic world but alef in Egyptology).

Lumping "combinations and workarounds" in a single bucket, however, is
against the spirit of Unicode. It is the precomposed characters that
are the workaround, viz. for the inability of legacy systems to handle
combining characters, which are the true Unicode way.
So let's get that proposal for these two characters happening!! Exactly
how does one go about that?
It already exists in preliminary form:
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2241.pdf
How long will it take for their acceptance
do you think?
About two years.
--
Not to perambulate John Cowan <***@reutershealth.com>
the corridors http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the boots of ascension. --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Paul James Cowie
2003-08-21 14:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, Michael and Peter....

For your feedback regarding Egyptian transliteration characters - I did
get the feeling after trawling the code charts that they just weren't
all there..... now you've confirmed the fact (well, at least we do have
the dotted k.... though I conventionally use "q" for that myself
anyway!)

To answer your question, Peter, I am using U+02BE for aleph when
encoding Semitic transliterations, likewise U+02BF for ayin (which is
also used in Egyptian transliteration). It would be great, though, to
have access to purpose-encoded characters for the conventional Egyptian
aleph (3) and yod (i with a half-ring) that don't rely on combinations
or workarounds. These characters are certainly the accepted convention
in most if not all Egyptological publications - a burgeoning field!

So let's get that proposal for these two characters happening!! Exactly
how does one go about that? How long will it take for their acceptance
do you think? I'd love to be able to drop use of a transliteration font
in order to encode my transliterations correctly.... I'm sure other
Egyptologists would also appreciate it!

Thanks again,

------------

Paul James Cowie

London, UK and Sydney, Australia

Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel
Committee Member, Friends of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology

PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
University, Sydney, Australia
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used for aleph (looks like a 3, but isn't, obviously)
Not encoded yet.
What are you using for ayin? If you are using U+02BF, you might
consider using U+02BE as an interim for aleph, and considering the
glyph like a 3 as a typographic variant. U+02BE is commonly used for
transliteration of Hebrew alef as well as the phoentically similar
Arabic hamza. Or maybe you are using U+02BB or U+02BD (and yes, I know
I am doing this in my Hebrew issues document, but only because the
other glyphs were not in the font), not sure if you should be, in
that case aleph would fit better with U+02BC though I guess you
wouldn't want to change the glyph in your font as you don't want all
your apostrophes looking like 3's.
But there is probably sufficient evidence on this one to justify
adding a character to Unicode. I have seen this 3 used for similar
sounds in other languages. And I (very far from an expert in
Egyptian!) have evidence in "How to read Egyptian hieroglyphs" by
Collier & Manley. This 3 seems to be the only transliteration
character in the book which is not in Unicode.
While we are considering number-like transliteration symbols,
something rather like a 9 is commonly used for transliteration of
Arabic ain and similar sounds in other languages. So perhaps that
could be included in the same proposal.
Or would U+021D or U+025C be suitable for your 3?
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used for yod (looks like a i with a right ring tick above it)
Encoding not determined yet.
This one looks rather like U+1EC9 though I am not sure if the hook
above is quite the right shape for you. You might prefer a regular i
followed by U+0357 COMBINING RIGHT HALF RING ABOVE. Or maybe U+0313
would be preferred, this is the Greek smooth breathing and looks like
a comma.
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used interchangeably for q (looks like a k with a dot beneath it)
U+1E33
--
Peter Kirk
http://www.qaya.org/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Michael Everson
2003-08-26 01:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used for aleph (looks like a 3, but isn't, obviously)
Not encoded yet.
What are you using for ayin?
EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN? I don't think it is either U+02BD or U+02BF. The
former is a reversed comma, the latter a half-ring. And neither has a
capital, as the Egyptological character has.
Post by Peter Kirk
If you are using U+02BF, you might consider using U+02BE as an
interim for aleph, and considering the glyph like a 3 as a
typographic variant.
A double half-ring as a glyph variant for a single half-ring? No
thanks. And EGYPTOLOGICAL ALEF is casing.
Post by Peter Kirk
U+02BE is commonly used for transliteration of Hebrew alef as well
as the phoentically similar Arabic hamza. Or maybe you are using
U+02BB or U+02BD (and yes, I know I am doing this in my Hebrew
issues document, but only because the other glyphs were not in the
font), not sure if you should be, in that case aleph would fit
better with U+02BC though I guess you wouldn't want to change the
glyph in your font as you don't want all your apostrophes looking
like 3's.
The Egyptological characters are quite different from the other
modifier letters used for Arabic and Hebrew. Alef in general Semitics
looks like a right single quotation mark or a right-half ring.
Egyptological Alef looks like two right-half rings one over the
other, and usually these are connected. This is clearly a novel
letter. And while Semitic Ayin is often represented with either
U+02BB or U+02BF, neither of those are casing. To my mind, the
Egyptological letters exist in one-to-one relation with Gardiner G1
'Egyptian vulture' (ALEF), M17 'flowering reed' (YOD) and 36
'forearm' (AYIN) apart from the casing which has been added in modern
editorial practice.
Post by Peter Kirk
Or would U+021D or U+025C be suitable for your 3?
U+021D is yogh, which is what it is. It is not an Alef, and the
resemblance is only superficial. And U+025C is a reverse epsilon, not
an Alef.
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used for yod (looks like a i with a right ring tick above it)
This one looks rather like U+1EC9 though I am not sure if the hook
above is quite the right shape for you. You might prefer a regular i
followed by U+0357 COMBINING RIGHT HALF RING ABOVE. Or maybe U+0313
would be preferred, this is the Greek smooth breathing and looks
like a comma.
None of the above.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Peter Kirk
2003-08-26 09:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Everson
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used for aleph (looks like a 3, but isn't, obviously)
Not encoded yet.
What are you using for ayin?
EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN? I don't think it is either U+02BD or U+02BF. The
former is a reversed comma, the latter a half-ring. And neither has a
capital, as the Egyptological character has.
Michael, it is very clear to me that the Egyptological ayin is modelled
in its glyph as well as its name on the ayin used in transliteration of
Hebrew, Arabic etc. The slightly variant shape in Gardiner is simply
because all the transliterations in Gardiner are in italics and so the
visible glyph is an italic reversed comma. As for the casing
distinction, I wonder if this is in fact unique to Gardiner. If so,
perhaps a PUA character is appropriate. But no doubt Paul Cowie can
advise on whether this is a widely used. If it is, I would suggest
adding one new character for an upper case ayin rather than a new pair.
Post by Michael Everson
Post by Peter Kirk
If you are using U+02BF, you might consider using U+02BE as an
interim for aleph, and considering the glyph like a 3 as a
typographic variant.
A double half-ring as a glyph variant for a single half-ring? No
thanks. And EGYPTOLOGICAL ALEF is casing.
Post by Peter Kirk
U+02BE is commonly used for transliteration of Hebrew alef as well as
the phoentically similar Arabic hamza. Or maybe you are using U+02BB
or U+02BD (and yes, I know I am doing this in my Hebrew issues
document, but only because the other glyphs were not in the font),
not sure if you should be, in that case aleph would fit better with
U+02BC though I guess you wouldn't want to change the glyph in your
font as you don't want all your apostrophes looking like 3's.
The Egyptological characters are quite different from the other
modifier letters used for Arabic and Hebrew. Alef in general Semitics
looks like a right single quotation mark or a right-half ring.
Egyptological Alef looks like two right-half rings one over the other,
and usually these are connected. This is clearly a novel letter. And
while Semitic Ayin is often represented with either U+02BB or U+02BF,
neither of those are casing. To my mind, the Egyptological letters
exist in one-to-one relation with Gardiner G1 'Egyptian vulture'
(ALEF), M17 'flowering reed' (YOD) and 36 'forearm' (AYIN) apart from
the casing which has been added in modern editorial practice.
Well, the one to one correspondences are not nearly so simple e.g. there
are many other hieroglyphic characters which represent a group of
consonants including alef, yod or ayin.
Post by Michael Everson
Post by Peter Kirk
Or would U+021D or U+025C be suitable for your 3?
U+021D is yogh, which is what it is. It is not an Alef, and the
resemblance is only superficial. And U+025C is a reverse epsilon, not
an Alef.
Well, I am confused. You are rejecting some alternatives because of
different shaped glyphs for the same function and others because of
different functions with essentially the same shape. What are the
criteria for adding new Latin characters to Unicode? Do they have to be
novel in function, novel in shape, or just one or the other?
Post by Michael Everson
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used for yod (looks like a i with a right ring tick above it)
This one looks rather like U+1EC9 though I am not sure if the hook
above is quite the right shape for you. You might prefer a regular i
followed by U+0357 COMBINING RIGHT HALF RING ABOVE. Or maybe U+0313
would be preferred, this is the Greek smooth breathing and looks like
a comma.
None of the above.
But the Egyptological glyph is apparently identical to one or other of
these. We really can't go down the road of encoding combining marks by
detailed function. If so we will have to disunify acute accent into all
sorts of different things: a marker of closer articulation (French), of
stress (many languages including modern Greek), of tone (classical Greek
and African languages) etc etc. Or else we can note that the
Egyptolological mark is identical in shape to either U+0357 or U+0313
and so use the existing mark.
--
Peter Kirk
***@qaya.org (personal)
***@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Michael Everson
2003-08-29 17:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN? I don't think it is either U+02BD or U+02BF.
The former is a reversed comma, the latter a half-ring. And neither
has a capital, as the Egyptological character has.
Michael, it is very clear to me that the Egyptological ayin is
modelled in its glyph as well as its name on the ayin used in
transliteration of Hebrew, Arabic etc.
Well, *I* gave it its name. And as to the glyph, having an original
model in something does not mean that an entity has not budded off
into its own letterness. ;-)
Post by Peter Kirk
The slightly variant shape in Gardiner is simply because all the
transliterations in Gardiner are in italics and so the visible glyph
is an italic reversed comma.
I disagree. Gardiner uses plenty of commas throughout his work, and
they are normal, raised, comma-sized commas. The EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN
is much longer, reaching from just above the baseline to x-height.
There is no chance that it is just an italic reversed comma. A
revised proposal will show examples indicating this.
Post by Peter Kirk
As for the casing distinction, I wonder if this is in fact unique to
Gardiner. If so, perhaps a PUA character is appropriate.
For Egyptian? Certainly not. Gardiner is essential in Egyptology, and
I would consider plain-text representation of his texts to be
essential. Whether it is unique to him or not, his work is seminal.
Post by Peter Kirk
But no doubt Paul Cowie can advise on whether this is a widely used.
If it is, I would suggest adding one new character for an upper case
ayin rather than a new pair.
I don't think that the apostrophe-ayin is the lower-case of this
character, even if it refers to the same *sound*.
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
The Egyptological characters are quite different from the other
modifier letters used for Arabic and Hebrew. Alef in general
Semitics looks like a right single quotation mark or a right-half
ring. Egyptological Alef looks like two right-half rings one over
the other, and usually these are connected. This is clearly a novel
letter.
Right.
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
And while Semitic Ayin is often represented with either U+02BB or
U+02BF, neither of those are casing. To my mind, the Egyptological
letters exist in one-to-one relation with Gardiner G1 'Egyptian
vulture' (ALEF), M17 'flowering reed' (YOD) and 36 'forearm' (AYIN)
apart from the casing which has been added in modern editorial
practice.
We need to encode modern editorial practice. And it is not just Gardiner.
Post by Peter Kirk
Well, the one to one correspondences are not nearly so simple e.g.
there are many other hieroglyphic characters which represent a group
of consonants including alef, yod or ayin.
Cleopatra's name is written with an Egyptian cup; modern editors
encode K or k for that cup depending on context, the capital being
used for proper names. That's why Gardiner cased Egyptian alef, ayin,
and yod. It's that novel *Latin* practice which is proposed for
encoding.
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
Post by Peter Kirk
Or would U+021D or U+025C be suitable for your 3?
U+021D is yogh, which is what it is. It is not an Alef, and the
resemblance is only superficial. And U+025C is a reverse epsilon,
not an Alef.
Well, I am confused. You are rejecting some alternatives because of
different shaped glyphs for the same function and others because of
different functions with essentially the same shape.
The YOGH is NOT essentially the same shape as the EGYPTOLOGICAL ALEF,
any more than DIGIT THREE or LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSE OPEN E is.
Neither is EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN the same shape as U+02BD MODIFIER
LETTER REVERSED COMMA. Even if it was derived from that, it has its
own attributes now which make it different. Like size and casing..
Post by Peter Kirk
What are the criteria for adding new Latin characters to Unicode? Do
they have to be novel in function, novel in shape, or just one or
the other?
For my part I look at the etymology or origin of the character. I
recognize (some do not) that sometimes a letter is borrowed from
another script and naturalized. I look at how the character
functions, what kinds of glyphs are OK for it. The Egyptological
characters all are unique enough to merit encoding.
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
Post by Peter Kirk
the sign used for yod (looks like a i with a right ring tick above it)
This one looks rather like U+1EC9 though I am not sure if the hook
above is quite the right shape for you. You might prefer a regular
i followed by U+0357 COMBINING RIGHT HALF RING ABOVE. Or maybe
U+0313 would be preferred, this is the Greek smooth breathing and
looks like a comma.
None of the above.
But the Egyptological glyph is apparently identical to one or other
of these. We really can't go down the road of encoding combining
marks by detailed function.
I don't think it is apparently identical to either a half ring (it is
more than half a ring), or apparently identical to the combining
apostrophe. It is, hm, more moon-like than anything. No, I don't
think it's the Vietnamese tone mark either.
Post by Peter Kirk
If so we will have to disunify acute accent into all sorts of
different things: a marker of closer articulation (French), of
stress (many languages including modern Greek), of tone (classical
Greek and African languages) etc etc.
I don't follow that logic at all.
Post by Peter Kirk
Or else we can note that the Egyptolological mark is identical in
shape to either U+0357 or U+0313 and so use the existing mark.
It is not identical to either. I do not want to add a combining
Egyptological ring-thingy to Unicode. It is not a productive mark. A
capital and small letter i with a deformed dot is what's needed,
that's all.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Peter Kirk
2003-08-29 21:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Everson
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN? I don't think it is either U+02BD or U+02BF. The
former is a reversed comma, the latter a half-ring. And neither has
a capital, as the Egyptological character has.
Michael, it is very clear to me that the Egyptological ayin is
modelled in its glyph as well as its name on the ayin used in
transliteration of Hebrew, Arabic etc.
Well, *I* gave it its name. And as to the glyph, having an original
model in something does not mean that an entity has not budded off
into its own letterness. ;-)
My point is that you didn't call it ayin. Neither did the ancient
Egyptians as this is a Semitic word, meaning "eye". Modern scholars gave
it that name because its sound is the same as the Semitic ayin. And they
gave it basically the same shape. It may have gone its own way since,
but I'm nopt entirely convinced.
Post by Michael Everson
...
Post by Peter Kirk
As for the casing distinction, I wonder if this is in fact unique to
Gardiner. If so, perhaps a PUA character is appropriate.
For Egyptian? Certainly not. Gardiner is essential in Egyptology, and
I would consider plain-text representation of his texts to be
essential. Whether it is unique to him or not, his work is seminal.
OK. But I'll use the same argument for Hebrew. BHS is essential in study
of biblical Hebrew, and so plain-text representation of BHS is
essential. Even including the raised letters, perhaps?
Post by Michael Everson
...
Post by Peter Kirk
Or else we can note that the Egyptolological mark is identical in
shape to either U+0357 or U+0313 and so use the existing mark.
It is not identical to either. I do not want to add a combining
Egyptological ring-thingy to Unicode. It is not a productive mark. A
capital and small letter i with a deformed dot is what's needed,
that's all.
I thought it was policy never to add new precomposed characters, however
unproductive the combining marks are. Well, that was certainly the
argument for encoding in Hebrew right holam rather than precomposed
holam male. Though we more or less agreed not to do either.
--
Peter Kirk
***@qaya.org (personal)
***@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Michael Everson
2003-08-29 22:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
Well, *I* gave it its name. And as to the glyph, having an original
model in something does not mean that an entity has not budded off
into its own letterness. ;-)
My point is that you didn't call it ayin. Neither did the ancient
Egyptians as this is a Semitic word, meaning "eye". Modern scholars
gave it that name because its sound is the same as the Semitic ayin
Gardiner, Loprieno, and others call it ayin. I never said anything
about ancient Egyptians. They didn't use the Latin script. These are
Egyptological characters used by Egyptologists. I formalized the name
to LATIN CAPITAL LETTER EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN and LATIN SMALL LETTER
EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN
Post by Peter Kirk
And they gave it basically the same shape. It may have gone its own
way since, but I'm not entirely convinced.
It isn't basically the same shape. Ayin is usually written with a
6-shaped apostrophe. If this were based on one of the apostrophes, it
would be a reversed 9-shaped apostrophe.
Post by Peter Kirk
OK. But I'll use the same argument for Hebrew. BHS is essential in
study of biblical Hebrew, and so plain-text representation of BHS is
essential. Even including the raised letters, perhaps?
I never said anything against raised Hebrew letters. I just helped to
encoded a rake of superscript Latin letters for Uralicists.
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
It is not identical to either. I do not want to add a combining
Egyptological ring-thingy to Unicode. It is not a productive mark.
A capital and small letter i with a deformed dot is what's needed,
that's all.
I thought it was policy never to add new precomposed characters,
however unproductive the combining marks are. Well, that was
certainly the argument for encoding in Hebrew right holam rather
than precomposed holam male. Though we more or less agreed not to do
either.
The policy is not to add a new character for which its base and its
combining mark are already there; that is, not to add a letter which
already exists because it can be made from things which are existing.
I propose a letter i with a special diacritic, but I do not propose
to encode the special diacritic separately, since it is not
productive. So I do not propose any decomposition for the character.
And I do not believe that the EGYPTOLOGICAL YOD can be encoded with
combining characters already in the standard.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Paul James Cowie
2003-08-21 15:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, Michael and Peter....

For your feedback regarding Egyptian transliteration characters - I did
get the feeling after trawling the code charts that they just weren't
all there..... now you've confirmed the fact (well, at least we do have
the dotted k.... though I conventionally use "q" for that myself
anyway!)

To answer your question, Peter, I am using U+02BE for aleph when
encoding Semitic transliterations, likewise U+02BF for ayin (which is
also used in Egyptian transliteration). It would be great, though, to
have access to purpose-encoded characters for the conventional Egyptian
aleph (3) and yod (i with a half-ring) that don't rely on combinations
or workarounds. These characters are certainly the accepted convention
in most if not all Egyptological publications - a burgeoning field!

So let's get that proposal for these two characters happening!! Exactly
how does one go about that? How long will it take for their acceptance
do you think? I'd love to be able to drop use of a transliteration font
in order to encode my transliterations correctly.... I'm sure other
Egyptologists would also appreciate it!

Thanks again,

------------

Paul James Cowie

London, UK and Sydney, Australia

Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel
Committee Member, Friends of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology

PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
University, Sydney, Australia
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used for aleph (looks like a 3, but isn't, obviously)
Not encoded yet.
What are you using for ayin? If you are using U+02BF, you might
consider using U+02BE as an interim for aleph, and considering the
glyph like a 3 as a typographic variant. U+02BE is commonly used for
transliteration of Hebrew alef as well as the phoentically similar
Arabic hamza. Or maybe you are using U+02BB or U+02BD (and yes, I know
I am doing this in my Hebrew issues document, but only because the
other glyphs were not in the font), not sure if you should be, in
that case aleph would fit better with U+02BC though I guess you
wouldn't want to change the glyph in your font as you don't want all
your apostrophes looking like 3's.
But there is probably sufficient evidence on this one to justify
adding a character to Unicode. I have seen this 3 used for similar
sounds in other languages. And I (very far from an expert in
Egyptian!) have evidence in "How to read Egyptian hieroglyphs" by
Collier & Manley. This 3 seems to be the only transliteration
character in the book which is not in Unicode.
While we are considering number-like transliteration symbols,
something rather like a 9 is commonly used for transliteration of
Arabic ain and similar sounds in other languages. So perhaps that
could be included in the same proposal.
Or would U+021D or U+025C be suitable for your 3?
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used for yod (looks like a i with a right ring tick above
it)
Encoding not determined yet.
This one looks rather like U+1EC9 though I am not sure if the hook
above is quite the right shape for you. You might prefer a regular i
followed by U+0357 COMBINING RIGHT HALF RING ABOVE. Or maybe U+0313
would be preferred, this is the Greek smooth breathing and looks like
a comma.
Post by Michael Everson
the sign used interchangeably for q (looks like a k with a dot
beneath it)
U+1E33
--
Peter Kirk
http://www.qaya.org/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Peter Kirk
2003-08-21 16:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul James Cowie
Thanks, Michael and Peter....
For your feedback regarding Egyptian transliteration characters - I
did get the feeling after trawling the code charts that they just
weren't all there..... now you've confirmed the fact (well, at least
we do have the dotted k.... though I conventionally use "q" for that
myself anyway!)
To answer your question, Peter, I am using U+02BE for aleph when
encoding Semitic transliterations, likewise U+02BF for ayin (which is
also used in Egyptian transliteration). It would be great, though, to
have access to purpose-encoded characters for the conventional
Egyptian aleph (3) and yod (i with a half-ring) that don't rely on
combinations or workarounds. These characters are certainly the
accepted convention in most if not all Egyptological publications - a
burgeoning field!
So let's get that proposal for these two characters happening!!
Exactly how does one go about that? How long will it take for their
acceptance do you think? I'd love to be able to drop use of a
transliteration font in order to encode my transliterations
correctly.... I'm sure other Egyptologists would also appreciate it!
Well, perhaps Michael can tell us what happened to the following
Post by Paul James Cowie
There is a proposal N2241
<http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/pdf/n2241-egypt.pdf> (from
2000-08-27 by Michael Everson) to add the Egyptological aleph and ayin
to Unicode (both the small and capital letters), and this is currently
under discussion (p.c. with Michael Everson, May 17th 2001).
The hyperlink to
http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/pdf/n2241-egypt.pdf is dead, but
the same proposal, presumably, is now at
http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/n2241-egypt.pdf. Such a
proposal is the way to go. But I wonder if the "egyptologial ayin"
proposed there is really different enough from U+02BD given that the
sample glyphs are all from italic fonts.

As for the requirement for distinct upper and lower case variants of
ayin, I understood that there was a similar requirement in some minor
Cyrillic languages, at least for apostrophe and double apostrophe.
Earlier this year Peter Constable was gathering information for a
possible proposal. But I never heard if it was proceeded with.
--
Peter Kirk
***@qaya.org (personal)
***@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Michael Everson
2003-08-28 23:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Kirk
The hyperlink to
http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/pdf/n2241-egypt.pdf is dead,
Of course, I have not been involved with that organization since
September 2001 -- more than twenty-three months now. I have continued
Irish work on codes, character sets, and internationalization via
Everson Typography and NSAI/ICTSCC/SC4.
Post by Peter Kirk
but the same proposal, presumably, is now at
http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/n2241-egypt.pdf. Such
a proposal is the way to go.
I thought so.
Post by Peter Kirk
But I wonder if the "egyptologial ayin" proposed] there is really
different enough from U+02BD given that the sample glyphs are all
from italic fonts.
I'll be answering this in another posting.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
P***@sil.org
2003-09-02 13:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Kirk
As for the requirement for distinct upper and lower case variants of
ayin, I understood that there was a similar requirement in some minor
Cyrillic languages, at least for apostrophe and double apostrophe.
Earlier this year Peter Constable was gathering information for a
possible proposal. But I never heard if it was proceeded with.
I was given charts reporting these things being used for various
languages, but don't think I ever got an explanation of what the purpose
for them was, and I didn't get any confirmation of actual use let alone
samples from actual publications. If you can provide samples, that would
be great.


Peter Constable




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Jim Allan
2003-08-21 14:29:15 UTC
Permalink
the sign used for aleph (looks like a 3, but isn't, obviously)
the sign used for yod (looks like a i with a right ring tick above it)
the sign used interchangeably for q (looks like a k with a dot beneath
it)
See http://www.dfki.de/~nederhof/AEL/transliteration.html for a
discussion of Egyptian transliteration using Unicode though for the _i_
with hook I think that the combination U+0069 + U+0357 (the last being a
newly coded diacritic) is superior to the suggest U+0069 + U+0313.

For the character that looks like _3_ I would suggest currently using
_3_ as that is the traditional fallback used in transliterations when
the proper character is not available.

Jim Allan



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Jim Allan
2003-08-21 14:29:32 UTC
Permalink
the sign used for aleph (looks like a 3, but isn't, obviously)
Actually the sign similar to 3 is used for `ain, `ayan, not aleph.

Normally U+02BE is used for aleph, though sometimes slightly extended.



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Kenneth Whistler
2003-08-29 22:13:20 UTC
Permalink
[ME]
Post by Peter Kirk
Post by Michael Everson
I do not want to add a combining
Egyptological ring-thingy to Unicode. It is not a productive mark. A
capital and small letter i with a deformed dot is what's needed,
that's all.
[PK]
Post by Peter Kirk
I thought it was policy never to add new precomposed characters, however
unproductive the combining marks are.
A character is "precomposed" if it is made up of parts which
can be *de*composed. Michael has said he does not want "to add
a combining Egyptological ring-thingy to Unicode". Without that
there is no part to *de*compose a "small letter i with a deformed
dot" into, so it would just stand on its own as another atomic
character -- exactly as Michael intends.

A diacritic mark might be productive or unproductive in a
graphological sense, but in either case, it only exists at
all in a character encoding *if* it is encoded. You can only
talk about an unproductive encoded combining mark if the
combining mark is present in the encoding.

There is no reason to decompose, in the *character* encoding,
every recurrent bit and piece of glyphs which *might* be
analyzed off graphically. Take a look at the Ethiopic script,
for example. Clearly the "butterfly", the "foot", and various
right side "flags", and so forth are analyzable, recurrent
bits of the system. But none of the Ethiopic characters are
treated as precomposed. Instead each syllable is treated as
an unanalyzed whole -- an atomic unit -- from the point of view
of the character encoding. Similar considerations apply to
other complex syllabic systems which are just encoded as
collections of atomic units, regardless of their graphic
structure. See the Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and
Yi, for example.

--Ken

===========================================================

Please note that for the duration of the Sobig.F worm, the
email address "***@sybase.com" is being blackholed. If you
wish to contact me by email, please use:
ken.whistler @ sybase.com



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide. E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt | Sales-Marketing | More
http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-***@yahooGroups.com

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Loading...