<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta name="x_Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
p.x_MsoNormal, li.x_MsoNormal, div.x_MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
a:x_link, span.x_MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:x_visited, span.x_MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline}
.x_MsoChpDefault
{}
div.x_WordSection1
{}
-->
</style>
<div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="x_WordSection1">
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Hi Michael</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">I agree with Mark-Jan Moeller 259 v1 looks like it can be identified with K004 . The v2 and v3 versions identify with the well-known later form (HG-K4A) so should probably be separately encoded as K004A.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">(To list - I expect Michael will be pleased to receive more detailed feedback on specifics from Egyptologists and other as requested in N4741 section 5).</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Bob</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="x_MsoNormal" style="border:none; padding:0cm"><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:mn31@st-andrews.ac.uk">Mark-Jan Nederhof</a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>19 September 2016 12:21<br>
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:egyptian@evertype.com">Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS</a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode Möller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS</p>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">With the 1071 signs in Unicode, there may at present be roughly two ways of<br>
encoding texts:<br>
<br>
(1) There are not-quite-so-serious users like me who, perhaps from a misplaced<br>
sense of being principled, refuse to use dubious, ill-documented,<br>
ill-standardized sign lists derived from the Hieroglyphica, and who therefore<br>
only use the Unicode set, as that is at least stable. Whenever they come<br>
across a sign that is not in Unicode, they have to use a place holder. (I then<br>
tend to use a question mark in my encoding, with a footnote describing what<br>
the sign depicts.)<br>
<br>
(2) Then there are serious users, like TLA and Ramses, who cannot afford to<br>
leave place holders in their encoding. They use one from an infinite supply of<br>
extended sets, and won't bother with Unicode, because that is much too<br>
restrictive. They realise fully well of course what is wrong with the extended<br>
sets, but at present there is no other alternative given their requirements.<br>
<br>
Neither of these types of users is happy with the status quo. The solution<br>
could be a thoroughly designed extended set in Unicode, properly researched<br>
and documented. A solid list is in the making, in the form of the<br>
Thot sign list. The problem is that this takes time and a lot of effort, and<br>
apparently some people are not patient enough to wait for the project to be<br>
completed, or at least for the project to be advanced enough to cover most<br>
signs.<br>
<br>
So what is to be done in the short term? For the people in (2) only<br>
a very comprehensive collection of signs in Unicode will suffice, and<br>
make them switch from their own sign lists to Unicode. But this is not<br>
forthcoming. For the people in (1), what would help tremendously are <br>
incremental additions with the most frequent signs not yet in Unicode.<br>
The most frequent signs also happen to be the ones that are best understood.<br>
But incremental additions cost extra time and detract from the purpose of<br>
building a more complete set.<br>
<br>
In contrast, random small additions will be pointless and even harmful, because:<br>
<br>
* Adding rare signs will not noticeably decrease the frequency of having<br>
to leave place holders while encoding typical texts.<br>
<br>
* The more unbalanced a sign list is, the more difficult it is for users to find their<br>
way, and choose the most appropriate signs for an encoding.<br>
<br>
* Premature additions may interfere with more additions later. Thorough and<br>
systematic investigations will be needed for deciding between say graphical<br>
variants and characters, and these investigations benefit from having a broad<br>
view over the collection of signs in a comprehensive collection of texts, so<br>
that the most appropriate choice can be made which shapes deserve to become<br>
code points and be representatives of a range of variants.<br>
<br>
Trying to fish accidental glyphs from Moeller that, probably for good reason,<br>
didn't make their way into the Gardiner set leads exactly to an addition that<br>
we don't need. Sure, some font designers who have nothing better to do will<br>
be happy to be able to draw a few more signs for their Unicode fonts, but the<br>
extension will have zero benefit for people who are actually encoding texts.<br>
<br>
What further bothers me is a repetition of mistakes from the past. What we<br>
need is not only cross references, but a thorough and justified description of<br>
what signs depict and mean. Only then can one answer the question how a sign<br>
relates to other signs. I'm reminded of e.g. sign L008, a hapax sign (only one<br>
obscure occurrence is known, with uncertain reading) that has been put under<br>
the insects, for no reason that anyone can remember, and probably incorrectly.<br>
Such things should never have happened. But if the same procedures are<br>
followed for the next addition to the Unicode sign list, such calamities will<br>
happen again.<br>
<br>
By including even signs from Moeller that are in footnotes one is scraping the<br>
barrel. Are we really so desperate to add as many signs as possible, no matter<br>
for how bad a reason?<br>
<br>
For example, 13458 refers to v3p4n1, a footnote for Moeller 36, which is<br>
clearly identifiable with Gardiner A008. Those who can read German see that<br>
the footnote says that the dots above the sign in some graphical variants are<br>
"filler points", and that the sign should _not_ be associated with another<br>
sign that is not known from hieratic, and that other sign I would read as the<br>
man sowing seeds (A060), an existing sign. Why then that 13458 is proposed as<br>
addition is beyond me.<br>
<br>
As I wrote earlier, you need to analyse the meaning of signs. Only then can<br>
you make informed decisions whether a sign is new. In many cases this requires<br>
expert knowledge of hieratic and/or looking at signs in context in the<br>
original hieratic documents. Two examples I spotted during superficial inspection:<br>
<br>
* Consider 13482 for Moeller 257. If this is _not_ K4 (as it obviously is<br>
according to Goedicke and the reading "XA" in Moeller) then you need to<br>
explain why not. What reading, use or purpose would set this sign apart from<br>
this or any other existing sign?<br>
<br>
* I suspect all of us may have made wrong guesses based on appearances. For<br>
example, A051 for Moeller 27 (here proposed as a new sign 13452) may be wrong.<br>
Goedicke associates this with A042 instead. Because A51 and A42 share some<br>
uses, e.g. first-person ending, looking at one or two occurrences in hieratic<br>
texts may not even suffice to decide which is which. <br>
<br>
Are we aware that obtaining any certainty on such matters will require serious<br>
effort? Then the next question is, is it worth it? Or does it do more harm<br>
than good?<br>
<br>
Mark-Jan<br>
<br>
On Friday 16 Sep 2016 14:58:19 Deborah W. Anderson wrote:<br>
> Dear list members,<br>
> Michael has submitted a preliminary proposal for additional characters,<br>
> building on what he circulated at the Cambridge meeting.<br>
> The document is located at:<br>
> <a href="http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16250-n4741-moller-egyptian.pdf">http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16250-n4741-moller-egyptian.pdf</a>
<br>
> <br>
> I have sent it on to the group at Mainz, and they will be able to comment on<br>
> it by early October. I have also send it to Barbara Lüscher in Basel.<br>
> <br>
> The proposal document mentions: "Experts are needed to carefully check<br>
> Vervloesem's suggested mappings against Nederhof's<br>
> and Richmond's suggested mappings."<br>
> <br>
> To assist in this endeavor, I created a spreadsheet showing the suggested<br>
> mappings by Vervloesem, Richmond, and Nederhof for the newly proposed<br>
> characters, as well as other characters in Moeller.<br>
> <br>
> The Excel spreadsheet is available at:<br>
> <a href="http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.xlsx">http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.xlsx</a>
<br>
> FYI: Grey highlighting in the spreadsheet indicates the newly proposed<br>
> characters for which Vervloesem, Richmond, and/or Nederhof have proposed a<br>
> mapping to Gardiner (/Unicode).<br>
> Yellow highlighting indicates newly proposed characters for which there is<br>
> no proposed mapping.<br>
> <br>
> A document describing the spreadsheet is posted at:<br>
> <a href="http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.pdf">http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.pdf</a> . (This<br>
> document contains the spreadsheet but in very tiny print.) <br>
> <br>
> Let me know if there are others whom you suggest I send this message to. <br>
> <br>
> With best wishes,<br>
> Debbie<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Egyptian mailing list<br>
> Egyptian@evertype.com<br>
> <a href="http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com">http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Egyptian mailing list<br>
Egyptian@evertype.com<br>
<a href="http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com">http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>