[Egyptian] Repeating operators

[Serge Rosmorduc]

Hello,

Just to clarify what I said (near to a pint of cider a month ago, and during the discussion yesterday).


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: repeatOperatorProposal.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 133228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160804/8af9e2de/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------


A few additional comments:

Regarding the INSERT-BOTTOM-LEFT control character, I would favor splitting it in two versions. 
Basically, if we consider the graphical order, this control is somehow ambiguous, for it?s a mix of INSERT-BOTTOM and INSERT-LEFT.

With the current interpretation :

- seen as something like INSERT LEFT, A INSERT-BOTTOM-LEFT B suggests that A comes before B in the linguistic stream (case of 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2426 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160804/8af9e2de/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
)

- seen as something like INSERT BOTTOM, A INSERT-BOTTOM-LEFT B, with B above A, suggests that B comes before A in the linguistic stream. (case of 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2408 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160804/8af9e2de/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
).

As we have all remarked, the first case is often attested with birds, and somehow points out to the linguistic order A-B (but not always)

The second case, attested with 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 3102 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160804/8af9e2de/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
, is much more regular, and points out to the ? main ? sign being first.

On a practical level, due to the size of the gap, it?s also the one where the lack of a proper mechanism hurts most. I guess using 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-4.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160804/8af9e2de/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
 instead of 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-5.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1999 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160804/8af9e2de/attachment-0005.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
 does not hurt scholars sensitivity as much as 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-6.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160804/8af9e2de/attachment-0006.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
 instead of 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-7.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2408 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160804/8af9e2de/attachment-0007.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
.

So, I might favor the use of INSERT-BELOW in this case.


As an aside, INSERT-TOP-RIGHT suffers from the same problem, but I feel it?s only problematic when rendering vertical texts (where it?s sometimes unclear if the 
inserted text belongs to the end of the previous quadrant or to the current one).

Best regards,

Serge