<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.emailquote, li.emailquote, div.emailquote
{mso-style-name:emailquote;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:1.0pt;
border:none;
padding:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.xmsonormal, li.xmsonormal, div.xmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Even if a bit late, I want to add my feedback to this and mention that I have posted new materials.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">To answer both Bob and Mark-Jan, I am in the opinion that we should aim at offering a significant addition reasonably quickly. Since the Cambridge meeting I have worked at
re-classifying the Hieroglyphica set and add mapping to the set. For example, I used the Dendara Cauville references and accompanying IFAO reference to create references in my own database. At some point, when these Hiroglyphica items get enough reference,
they may become candidate for future encoding. A key part of that work was to recreate a new taxonomy, still roughly ordered by the usual A-Z based Gardiner set, but with meaningful sub-sets based on the IFAO classification. It is far from perfect, but it
makes search and future insertion much easier.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Unlike my previous approach, I am not aiming at getting the full Hieroglyphica encoded at once. In fact, if anything the new taxonomy work has shown to me that a significant
part of the Hieroglyphica set are duplicate or at least suspicious. So I think that a staged approach is preferable. At the same time, it looks like a subset of about 4000 characters have a decent case (including the 1071 already encoded).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">My work is available as
<a href="http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16257-n4751-hieroglyphs-new.pdf">http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16257-n4751-hieroglyphs-new.pdf</a> It includes a full copy of the database as of now.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I have done comparison with the work mentioned in this subject, and it seems to me that many of the proposed 166 are included in my own set (at least the ones I could identify).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Now answering some of Mark-Jan remarks in more details:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">- I am also puzzled by L008. It does not look much like an insect. It could be many things. I have no access to the source mentioned by Unikemet (Griffith Institute Topopraphical
Bibiography, 8-1:221:400), so I cannot contribute. For now, I have kept in the Insect category but would be game to move it, based on further feedback.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">- concerning proposed 13458 (A095), I agree it looks like A60. Cauville references it in page 18, with 3 IFAO references (14,13; 14,15; and 15,1). At this point my set has
3 variants (H-A60, H-A60A, and H-A138). The taxonomy for that group now says ‘pouring water’, but obviously needs to be altered to also mention ‘sowing seeds’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">- concerning proposed 13482 (K010), I agree with Bob it is a variant of K4. Cauville distinguishes them in page 134 (134,4 and 134,5), and referencing 3 IFAO indexes (227,8;
227,12; and 227,13). I have 3 of them included.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">- concerning proposed 13452 (A089), I agree there are some similarities with A42 and A51, although A51 looks closer. Note that Hieroglyphica has H-A51 and H-A51A, referenced
by Cauville page 17 (17,5) with 2 IFA references: 36,10 and 37,1. I would tend to think that 13452 looks a lot like H-A51A (IFAO 37,1).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I would encourage all of you to have a look at my document. It is definitively a work in progress. I have to add more IFAO mapping and more sources. At some point it would
also be good to add phonograms and determinatives. I also intend to add a column in the database for encoding priority to determine which entries should be encoded first.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Best regards.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Michel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Egyptian [mailto:egyptian-bounces@evertype.com]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bob Richmond<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 22, 2016 6:11 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS <egyptian@evertype.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode Möller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Hi Michael<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-GB">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-GB">(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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Bob<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">From: </span></b><span lang="EN-GB"><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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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>
> <a href="mailto:Egyptian@evertype.com">Egyptian@evertype.com</a><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>
<a href="mailto:Egyptian@evertype.com">Egyptian@evertype.com</a><br>
<a href="http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com">http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>