[Egyptian] Ligature joiners - evidence needed please

Thu Jul 21 11:22:21 BST 2016

Bob

Was just glancing to see if there were any awkward groups in the TT99 material and one jumped out which is not so often mentioned, that is with the tongue sign when used as imy-r ‘overseer’. It is impossible to get grouping it right in JSesh without considerable manual manipulation, or export to Illustrator (which I prefer anyway). I attach some graphics, one from a quick go in JSesh, and others from the facsimile originals. The ‘tail’ of the tongue has something in common with D. Title groups are often enough to defeat any setting program.

The Z1 sign is a pain too, but that may be more of the fact that many fonts oversize it. Using “3” for the squashed plural signs produces a better effect. But I realise this is not the issue about which you are concerned.

Nigel

On 21 Jul 2016, at 11:00, Bob Richmond <bobqq at live.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Simon
>  
> Thanks for the examples.
>  
> Just to be clear to all. I’d like to make a good case for controls and identify/illustrate any variations or issues needing discussion.
>  
> If anyone has time to create a doc/PDF with a bunch of graphic illustrations of clusters showing awkward cases this would save me time – I’ve plenty else to do on this ASAP so help appreciated.
>  
> Bob
>  
> From: Simon Schweitzer
> Sent: 21 July 2016 08:40
> To: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS
> Subject: Re: [Egyptian] Ligature joiners - evidence needed please
>  
> Hi all,
> 
> concerning the one ligature joiner vs. the four corner ligature joiner:
> 
> > I’ve not yet seen any data, evidence or rationale about the suggested 5 positional ligature system discussed at Cambridge. I don’t have unlimited time to research all this myself and I’m not an Egyptologist. Technically such a system can be added to current controls but it needs to be well-defined, detailed and justified if it is to be submitted. [This is what I’m doing with the group-joiners].
> 
> Why should one use four instead of one ligature joiner?
> Because the encoding with four control characters offers more 
> information. It is readable for the egyptologist and for the font 
> developer. Cf. my example from the last week: In the temple of Kom Ombo, 
> there are two ligatures with the knife T31 and the bread X1. We can 
> encode this in RES with insert[bs](T31,X1) and insert[te](T31,X1). The 
> position of the X1 is obvious. But if we have T31&X1, one cannot decide 
> the position of X1. And a font developer could create such ligature with 
> the "corner control character" even if he do not see the original 
> reference, but he cannot do anything if he only has T31&X1. But what 
> about T31&N29 or T31&O49, ligatures, that occurs in the Kom Ombo temple? 
> We (the egyptologists, the font developers, the fonts) cannot interpret 
> the ligature only with this encoding.
> 
> Okay, the Kom Ombo temple belongs to the ptolemaic and not to the 
> "classical" writing system. But the encoding of this temple is important 
> for the TLA project, because the Kom Ombo project wants to encode their 
> data in our system, so that we will have such encodings in our material. 
> But there are such problems in more classical data, too:
> 
> For example the ligatures with E6. Bob, you offers three ligatures in 
> your EGPZ 1.0 BETA Specification (August 2007): U+eb13 E6&Z2d, U+eb14 
> E6&X1, and U+eb15 E6&Z1. These ligatures could be encoded as 
> insert[te](E6,Z2), insert[te](E6,X1), insert[b](E6,Z1) in RES. But there 
> are examples where the plral strokes are in another corner. These 
> examples (DZA 24.607.440 
> <http://aaew.bbaw.de/dza/24/24605000/24607440.gif> or DZA 28.723.300 
> <http://aaew.bbaw.de/dza/28/28720000/28723300.gif>) could be encoded as 
> insert[bs](E6,Z2) in RES. As in T31&X1, the encoding of E6&Z2 is 
> ambiguous. The three ligatures which E6 use different corners. 
> Therefore, it is not clear how to interpret E6&D2 or E6&X1&Z2. But if we 
> have the four corner control characters, we could encode something like 
> the RES code insert[te](E6,D2) instead of E6&D2 in DZA 28.722.290 
> <http://aaew.bbaw.de/dza/28/28720000/28722290.gif>. The E6&X1&Z2 would 
> be the readable insert[bs](E6,X1*Z2) in RES (DZA 28.722.530 
> <http://aaew.bbaw.de/dza/28/28720000/28722530.gif>). BTW, this example 
> is an argument for the special grouping character "g*" which Michael 
> wrote on the whiteboard last week: X1 g* Z2 insert_bs E6 and the 
> g*-group has to be parsed first. But this is another topic...
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Simon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Egyptian mailing list
> Egyptian at evertype.com
> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com
> _______________________________________________
> Egyptian mailing list
> Egyptian at evertype.com
> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160721/2d945aed/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-4.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160721/2d945aed/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 58499 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160721/2d945aed/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-3.png
Type: image/png
Size: 44217 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20160721/2d945aed/attachment-0002.png>