From michel at suignard.com  Sat Oct  8 21:00:15 2016
From: michel at suignard.com (Michel Suignard)
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 20:00:15 +0000
Subject: [Egyptian] 
 =?iso-8859-1?q?Preliminary_proposal_to_encode_M=F6lle?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?r=27s_Egyptian_Hieroglyphs_in_the_SMP_of_the_UCS?=
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR1001MB1067502AF331099A4F8C6C6191C90@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <002401d21065$6ff34180$4fd9c480$@sonic.net>,
 <1926839.bRjLxKCbEQ@thuis>
 <HE1PR1001MB1067502AF331099A4F8C6C6191C90@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <BN6PR02MB284907213EA3AC67F3C37851A2D90@BN6PR02MB2849.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

Even if a bit late, I want to add my feedback to this and mention that I have posted new materials.

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.
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).
My work is available as http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16257-n4751-hieroglyphs-new.pdf It includes a full copy of the database as of now.

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).

Now answering some of Mark-Jan remarks in more details:

- 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.

- 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'.

- 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.

- 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).

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.

Best regards.

Michel


From: Egyptian [mailto:egyptian-bounces at evertype.com] On Behalf Of Bob Richmond
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 6:11 AM
To: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
Cc: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS <egyptian at evertype.com>
Subject: Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode M?ller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS


Hi Michael



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.



(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).



Bob



From: Mark-Jan Nederhof<mailto:mn31 at st-andrews.ac.uk>
Sent: 19 September 2016 12:21
To: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS<mailto:egyptian at evertype.com>
Subject: Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode M?ller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS


With the 1071 signs in Unicode, there may at present be roughly two ways of
encoding texts:

(1) There are not-quite-so-serious users like me who, perhaps from a misplaced
sense of being principled, refuse to use dubious, ill-documented,
ill-standardized sign lists derived from the Hieroglyphica, and who therefore
only use the Unicode set, as that is at least stable. Whenever they come
across a sign that is not in Unicode, they have to use a place holder. (I then
tend to use a question mark in my encoding, with a footnote describing what
the sign depicts.)

(2) Then there are serious users, like TLA and Ramses, who cannot afford to
leave place holders in their encoding. They use one from an infinite supply of
extended sets, and won't bother with Unicode, because that is much too
restrictive. They realise fully well of course what is wrong with the extended
sets, but at present there is no other alternative given their requirements.

Neither of these types of users is happy with the status quo. The solution
could be a thoroughly designed extended set in Unicode, properly researched
and documented.  A solid list is in the making, in the form of the
Thot sign list.  The problem is that this takes time and a lot of effort, and
apparently some people are not patient enough to wait for the project to be
completed, or at least for the project to be advanced enough to cover most
signs.

So what is to be done in the short term? For the people in (2) only
a very comprehensive collection of signs in Unicode will suffice, and
make them switch from their own sign lists to Unicode. But this is not
forthcoming. For the people in (1), what would help tremendously are
incremental additions with the most frequent signs not yet in Unicode.
The most frequent signs also happen to be the ones that are best understood.
But incremental additions cost extra time and detract from the purpose of
building a more complete set.

In contrast, random small additions will be pointless and even harmful, because:

* Adding rare signs will not noticeably decrease the frequency of having
to leave place holders while encoding typical texts.

* The more unbalanced a sign list is, the more difficult it is for users to find their
way, and choose the most appropriate signs for an encoding.

* Premature additions may interfere with more additions later. Thorough and
systematic investigations will be needed for deciding between say graphical
variants and characters, and these investigations benefit from having a broad
view over the collection of signs in a comprehensive collection of texts, so
that the most appropriate choice can be made which shapes deserve to become
code points and be representatives of a range of variants.

Trying to fish accidental glyphs from Moeller that, probably for good reason,
didn't make their way into the Gardiner set leads exactly to an addition that
we don't need.  Sure, some font designers who have nothing better to do will
be happy to be able to draw a few more signs for their Unicode fonts, but the
extension will have zero benefit for people who are actually encoding texts.

What further bothers me is a repetition of mistakes from the past. What we
need is not only cross references, but a thorough and justified description of
what signs depict and mean. Only then can one answer the question how a sign
relates to other signs. I'm reminded of e.g. sign L008, a hapax sign (only one
obscure occurrence is known, with uncertain reading) that has been put under
the insects, for no reason that anyone can remember, and probably incorrectly.
Such things should never have happened. But if the same procedures are
followed for the next addition to the Unicode sign list, such calamities will
happen again.

By including even signs from Moeller that are in footnotes one is scraping the
barrel. Are we really so desperate to add as many signs as possible, no matter
for how bad a reason?

For example, 13458 refers to v3p4n1, a footnote for Moeller 36, which is
clearly identifiable with Gardiner A008. Those who can read German see that
the footnote says that the dots above the sign in some graphical variants are
"filler points", and that the sign should _not_ be associated with another
sign that is not known from hieratic, and that other sign I would read as the
man sowing seeds (A060), an existing sign. Why then that 13458 is proposed as
addition is beyond me.

As I wrote earlier, you need to analyse the meaning of signs. Only then can
you make informed decisions whether a sign is new. In many cases this requires
expert knowledge of hieratic and/or looking at signs in context in the
original hieratic documents. Two examples I spotted during superficial inspection:

* Consider 13482 for Moeller 257. If this is _not_ K4 (as it obviously is
according to Goedicke and the reading "XA" in Moeller) then you need to
explain why not. What reading, use or purpose would set this sign apart from
this or any other existing sign?

* I suspect all of us may have made wrong guesses based on appearances.  For
example, A051 for Moeller 27 (here proposed as a new sign 13452) may be wrong.
Goedicke associates this with A042 instead. Because A51 and A42 share some
uses, e.g. first-person ending, looking at one or two occurrences in hieratic
texts may not even suffice to decide which is which.

Are we aware that obtaining any certainty on such matters will require serious
effort? Then the next question is, is it worth it? Or does it do more harm
than good?

Mark-Jan

On Friday 16 Sep 2016 14:58:19 Deborah W. Anderson wrote:
> Dear list members,
> Michael has submitted a preliminary proposal for additional characters,
> building on what he circulated at the Cambridge meeting.
> The document is located at:
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16250-n4741-moller-egyptian.pdf
>
> I have sent it on to the group at Mainz, and they will be able to comment on
> it by early October. I have also send it to Barbara L?scher in Basel.
>
> The proposal document mentions: "Experts are needed to carefully check
> Vervloesem's suggested mappings against Nederhof's
> and Richmond's suggested mappings."
>
> To assist in this endeavor, I created a spreadsheet showing the suggested
> mappings by Vervloesem, Richmond, and Nederhof for the newly proposed
> characters, as well as other characters in Moeller.
>
> The Excel spreadsheet is available at:
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.xlsx
> FYI: Grey highlighting in the spreadsheet indicates the newly proposed
> characters for which Vervloesem, Richmond, and/or Nederhof have proposed a
> mapping to Gardiner (/Unicode).
> Yellow highlighting indicates newly proposed characters for which there is
> no proposed mapping.
>
> A document describing the spreadsheet is posted at:
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.pdf  . (This
> document contains the spreadsheet but in very tiny print.)
>
> Let me know if there are others whom you suggest I send this message to.
>
> With best wishes,
> Debbie
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Egyptian mailing list
> Egyptian at evertype.com<mailto:Egyptian at evertype.com>
> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com


_______________________________________________
Egyptian mailing list
Egyptian at evertype.com<mailto: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/20161008/b6fb3064/attachment.htm>

From s.polis at ulg.ac.be  Mon Oct 10 09:04:47 2016
From: s.polis at ulg.ac.be (=?utf-8?Q?St=C3=A9phane_polis?=)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:04:47 +0200
Subject: [Egyptian] 
 =?utf-8?q?Preliminary_proposal_to_encode_M=C3=B6ller?=
 =?utf-8?q?=27s_Egyptian_Hieroglyphs_in_the_SMP_of_the_UCS?=
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR02MB284907213EA3AC67F3C37851A2D90@BN6PR02MB2849.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <002401d21065$6ff34180$4fd9c480$@sonic.net>
 <1926839.bRjLxKCbEQ@thuis>
 <HE1PR1001MB1067502AF331099A4F8C6C6191C90@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <BN6PR02MB284907213EA3AC67F3C37851A2D90@BN6PR02MB2849.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <31767454-DB3C-4A0D-8440-20BEA69B7533@ulg.ac.be>

Hi everyone, 

Thanks a lot for your message, Michel!

As mentioned during the Cambridge meeting (and stressed again in several mails by Mark-Jan), producing a referenced sign-list (according to the model that Serge and myself presented in Cambridge or following another model, it does not matter much) shall require scholarly work ? and comparing the shape of forms in publications without paying systematic attention to the phonemographic and semographic functions of these signs in context will hardly lead anywhere satisfying for the egyptological community. 

A PhD student coming from the university of Leiden is about to start a 4 year fellowship here in two weeks. His goal is precisely to work on a documented sign-list in the framework of a collaboration between the Berlin Academy and Li?ge. You?re obviously much welcome to go ahead, as we can definitely integrate your result in the forthcoming online Sign-list, but I think that it?s good for you to know about the schedule of both institutions. In a nutshell, it?s certainly gonna take a bit of time on our side, but something should be available online in the next few years.

Best wishes,

St?phane

------------------------------------------------------
Chercheur qualifi? F.R.S.-FNRS

Universit? de Li?ge
Service d'?gyptologie
D?partement des sciences de l?Antiquit?
Place du 20-Ao?t,
B-4000 Li?ge

http://www.egypto.ulg.ac.be
------------------------------------------------------



> Le 8 oct. 2016 ? 22:00, Michel Suignard <michel at suignard.com> a ?crit :
> 
> Even if a bit late, I want to add my feedback to this and mention that I have posted new materials.
>  
> 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.
> 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).
> My work is available as http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16257-n4751-hieroglyphs-new.pdf <http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16257-n4751-hieroglyphs-new.pdf> It includes a full copy of the database as of now.
>  
> 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).
>  
> Now answering some of Mark-Jan remarks in more details:
>  
> - 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.
>  
> - 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?.
>  
> - 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.
>  
> - 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).
>  
> 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.
>  
> Best regards.
>  
> Michel
>  
> ? <>
> From: Egyptian [mailto:egyptian-bounces at evertype.com] On Behalf Of Bob Richmond
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 6:11 AM
> To: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
> Cc: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS <egyptian at evertype.com>
> Subject: Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode M?ller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS
>  
> Hi Michael
>  
> 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.
>  
> (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).
>  
> Bob
>  
> From: Mark-Jan Nederhof <mailto:mn31 at st-andrews.ac.uk>
> Sent: 19 September 2016 12:21
> To: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS <mailto:egyptian at evertype.com>
> Subject: Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode M?ller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS
>  
> With the 1071 signs in Unicode, there may at present be roughly two ways of
> encoding texts:
> 
> (1) There are not-quite-so-serious users like me who, perhaps from a misplaced
> sense of being principled, refuse to use dubious, ill-documented,
> ill-standardized sign lists derived from the Hieroglyphica, and who therefore
> only use the Unicode set, as that is at least stable. Whenever they come
> across a sign that is not in Unicode, they have to use a place holder. (I then
> tend to use a question mark in my encoding, with a footnote describing what
> the sign depicts.)
> 
> (2) Then there are serious users, like TLA and Ramses, who cannot afford to
> leave place holders in their encoding. They use one from an infinite supply of
> extended sets, and won't bother with Unicode, because that is much too
> restrictive. They realise fully well of course what is wrong with the extended
> sets, but at present there is no other alternative given their requirements.
> 
> Neither of these types of users is happy with the status quo. The solution
> could be a thoroughly designed extended set in Unicode, properly researched
> and documented.  A solid list is in the making, in the form of the
> Thot sign list.  The problem is that this takes time and a lot of effort, and
> apparently some people are not patient enough to wait for the project to be
> completed, or at least for the project to be advanced enough to cover most
> signs.
> 
> So what is to be done in the short term? For the people in (2) only
> a very comprehensive collection of signs in Unicode will suffice, and
> make them switch from their own sign lists to Unicode. But this is not
> forthcoming. For the people in (1), what would help tremendously are 
> incremental additions with the most frequent signs not yet in Unicode.
> The most frequent signs also happen to be the ones that are best understood.
> But incremental additions cost extra time and detract from the purpose of
> building a more complete set.
> 
> In contrast, random small additions will be pointless and even harmful, because:
> 
> * Adding rare signs will not noticeably decrease the frequency of having
> to leave place holders while encoding typical texts.
> 
> * The more unbalanced a sign list is, the more difficult it is for users to find their
> way, and choose the most appropriate signs for an encoding.
> 
> * Premature additions may interfere with more additions later. Thorough and
> systematic investigations will be needed for deciding between say graphical
> variants and characters, and these investigations benefit from having a broad
> view over the collection of signs in a comprehensive collection of texts, so
> that the most appropriate choice can be made which shapes deserve to become
> code points and be representatives of a range of variants.
> 
> Trying to fish accidental glyphs from Moeller that, probably for good reason,
> didn't make their way into the Gardiner set leads exactly to an addition that
> we don't need.  Sure, some font designers who have nothing better to do will
> be happy to be able to draw a few more signs for their Unicode fonts, but the
> extension will have zero benefit for people who are actually encoding texts.
> 
> What further bothers me is a repetition of mistakes from the past. What we
> need is not only cross references, but a thorough and justified description of
> what signs depict and mean. Only then can one answer the question how a sign
> relates to other signs. I'm reminded of e.g. sign L008, a hapax sign (only one
> obscure occurrence is known, with uncertain reading) that has been put under
> the insects, for no reason that anyone can remember, and probably incorrectly.
> Such things should never have happened. But if the same procedures are
> followed for the next addition to the Unicode sign list, such calamities will
> happen again.
> 
> By including even signs from Moeller that are in footnotes one is scraping the
> barrel. Are we really so desperate to add as many signs as possible, no matter
> for how bad a reason?
> 
> For example, 13458 refers to v3p4n1, a footnote for Moeller 36, which is
> clearly identifiable with Gardiner A008. Those who can read German see that
> the footnote says that the dots above the sign in some graphical variants are
> "filler points", and that the sign should _not_ be associated with another
> sign that is not known from hieratic, and that other sign I would read as the
> man sowing seeds (A060), an existing sign. Why then that 13458 is proposed as
> addition is beyond me.
> 
> As I wrote earlier, you need to analyse the meaning of signs. Only then can
> you make informed decisions whether a sign is new. In many cases this requires
> expert knowledge of hieratic and/or looking at signs in context in the
> original hieratic documents. Two examples I spotted during superficial inspection:
> 
> * Consider 13482 for Moeller 257. If this is _not_ K4 (as it obviously is
> according to Goedicke and the reading "XA" in Moeller) then you need to
> explain why not. What reading, use or purpose would set this sign apart from
> this or any other existing sign?
> 
> * I suspect all of us may have made wrong guesses based on appearances.  For
> example, A051 for Moeller 27 (here proposed as a new sign 13452) may be wrong.
> Goedicke associates this with A042 instead. Because A51 and A42 share some
> uses, e.g. first-person ending, looking at one or two occurrences in hieratic
> texts may not even suffice to decide which is which. 
> 
> Are we aware that obtaining any certainty on such matters will require serious
> effort? Then the next question is, is it worth it? Or does it do more harm
> than good?
> 
> Mark-Jan
> 
> On Friday 16 Sep 2016 14:58:19 Deborah W. Anderson wrote:
> > Dear list members,
> > Michael has submitted a preliminary proposal for additional characters,
> > building on what he circulated at the Cambridge meeting.
> > The document is located at:
> > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16250-n4741-moller-egyptian.pdf <http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16250-n4741-moller-egyptian.pdf>  
> > 
> > I have sent it on to the group at Mainz, and they will be able to comment on
> > it by early October. I have also send it to Barbara L?scher in Basel.
> > 
> > The proposal document mentions: "Experts are needed to carefully check
> > Vervloesem's suggested mappings against Nederhof's
> > and Richmond's suggested mappings."
> > 
> > To assist in this endeavor, I created a spreadsheet showing the suggested
> > mappings by Vervloesem, Richmond, and Nederhof for the newly proposed
> > characters, as well as other characters in Moeller.
> > 
> > The Excel spreadsheet is available at:
> > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.xlsx <http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.xlsx>  
> > FYI: Grey highlighting in the spreadsheet indicates the newly proposed
> > characters for which Vervloesem, Richmond, and/or Nederhof have proposed a
> > mapping to Gardiner (/Unicode).
> > Yellow highlighting indicates newly proposed characters for which there is
> > no proposed mapping.
> > 
> > A document describing the spreadsheet is posted at:
> > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.pdf <http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.pdf>  . (This
> > document contains the spreadsheet but in very tiny print.) 
> > 
> > Let me know if there are others whom you suggest I send this message to. 
> > 
> > With best wishes,
> > Debbie
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Egyptian mailing list
> > Egyptian at evertype.com <mailto:Egyptian at evertype.com>
> > http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com <http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Egyptian mailing list
> Egyptian at evertype.com <mailto:Egyptian at evertype.com>
> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_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/20161010/a15a2e23/attachment.htm>

From rosmord at gmail.com  Mon Oct 10 09:58:26 2016
From: rosmord at gmail.com (Serge Rosmorduc)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:58:26 +0200
Subject: [Egyptian] 
 =?utf-8?q?Preliminary_proposal_to_encode_M=C3=B6ller?=
 =?utf-8?q?=27s_Egyptian_Hieroglyphs_in_the_SMP_of_the_UCS?=
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR02MB284907213EA3AC67F3C37851A2D90@BN6PR02MB2849.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <002401d21065$6ff34180$4fd9c480$@sonic.net>
 <1926839.bRjLxKCbEQ@thuis>
 <HE1PR1001MB1067502AF331099A4F8C6C6191C90@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <BN6PR02MB284907213EA3AC67F3C37851A2D90@BN6PR02MB2849.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <E1855D27-D1AC-444C-AF81-A74B5BF0FBEB@gmail.com>

Dear all,

I completely agree with Mark-Jan concerning both the pace of additions and their scope.

Concerning Michael?s list for hieratic, it?s a bit too large to handle. 
- Many signs are either already encoded, or small variants thereof (most of the birds, for instance, as well as the crowns).
- A few of them are signs which, while unusual, are not variant of any other sign, 
  and might be encoded without too much problem (I?m thinking of the signs for mouse, for instance).


In some cases, hieratic makes distinctions where hieroglyphs don?t, as you point out for s?m, ?rp and ?b?. Should it be encoded ? 
First, looking at the examples, there are only two families of signs: s?m/?b? on the one hand, and ?rp on the other.
Egyptologist already do it for the couple H6 ?/ H6A?, using a small reference to the hieratic diacritic strokes used to distinguish  the signs (m??.t vs ?w). 

For the scepters, they did not feel the need to do so in their publications, probably because the context - in hieratic texts - is most of the time quite clear.
 Another problem is that the solutions used to differentiate the signs, in hieratic, have been consistent : in M?ller I, the scribes seem to occasionally use 
a diacritic stroke to distinguish s?m, whereas in M?ller II, it?s ?rp which gets diacritic strokes.

I guess what we mainly need for hieratic is a handful of signs: 
	- "verse points"
	- maybe a couple of so-called space fillers (JSesh Ff101 and Ff100)
	- a few signs linked to scribal practices like the sign for ? ditto ?. 


Regarding signs like seated kings, I think it is better to postpone their publication, in order to propose a coherent 
catalogue (trying to organise what characteristics of a sign we consider as relevant and what are not).

Among the signs which are not encoded yet, the following seem to me both interesting to encode and not problematic (as they are quite stand 
alone and don?t form a system with other signs as variants of A50 (?) do.

1346A : the mouse
13464 : testicles
1347C : the falcon eye (rather usual in late times for m?? or jm??).
13490 : jmn cryptogram.


Regarding Michel?s list: St?phane has just posted a message, which explains it all.

I would like to add that focusing on a tree-like taxonomy of signs based on their description is maybe not needed - at least, not needed with 
a very fine granularity.

Tree-like representations have the advantage that they can be published on paper. But, with computers, we might 
get something better and more versatile. I have made such an attempt with JSesh hieroglyphic palette : instead of trying to fit signs like A429 
(man with lion) in the category ? man ? or in the category ? animal ?, I have 
used multiple description criteria.

Of course, the JSesh system, which simply uses tags, is not perfect. It would be better to have a kind of thesaurus on the tags themselves (lion < feline, for instance) ; and to have 
an actual description language on the signs (so that ? MAN HOLDING X8 ? could be used as part of a description. JSesh would describe such a sign by having
the simple tag ? HOLDING_SOMETHING ?, on one hand, and by listing X8 as part of the glyph. 
(which allows me to find quite quickly in the JSesh palette that the said sign is A176).

Of course, the taxonomy is a useful starting point for producing this language. If you look at JSesh's palette, you will find many tags which come from the IFAO categories.


> Now answering some of Mark-Jan remarks in more details:
>  
> - 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.

Concerning the problems with insects, and to get an idea of why we must proceed on a really slower pace, I suggest the reading of Meek?s article : https://www.academia.edu/326140/De_quelques_insectes_?gyptiens._Entre_lexique_et_pal?ographie


> - 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?.

Independently of the actual solution for this case, one problem with hieroglyph identification is the following:

- On one hand, printed fonts might hide relevant details, hiding two distinct signs behind one code ;

- On the other hand, the egyptian had exactly the same problem, and originally distinct signs might merge due to some graphical or phonetical proximity.

Best regards,

Serge



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20161010/6c3462e4/attachment.htm>

From bobqq at live.co.uk  Mon Oct 10 10:31:33 2016
From: bobqq at live.co.uk (Bob Richmond)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:31:33 +0000
Subject: [Egyptian] 
 =?windows-1252?q?Preliminary_proposal_to_encode_M=F6l?=
 =?windows-1252?q?ler=27s_Egyptian_Hieroglyphs_in_the_SMP_of_the_UCS?=
In-Reply-To: <31767454-DB3C-4A0D-8440-20BEA69B7533@ulg.ac.be>
References: <002401d21065$6ff34180$4fd9c480$@sonic.net>
 <1926839.bRjLxKCbEQ@thuis>
 <HE1PR1001MB1067502AF331099A4F8C6C6191C90@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <BN6PR02MB284907213EA3AC67F3C37851A2D90@BN6PR02MB2849.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>,
 <31767454-DB3C-4A0D-8440-20BEA69B7533@ulg.ac.be>
Message-ID: <HE1PR1001MB106784BF95E362FBDDD97E5E91DB0@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Hi St?phane

Good to hear  you?ve found funding to employ someone to work on sign-list documentation.

Have you any estimate as to when we can look forward to seeing something online?

Regards,
Bob

From: St?phane polis<mailto:s.polis at ulg.ac.be>
Sent: 10 October 2016 09:16
To: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS<mailto:egyptian at evertype.com>
Subject: Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode M?ller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS

Hi everyone,

Thanks a lot for your message, Michel!

As mentioned during the Cambridge meeting (and stressed again in several mails by Mark-Jan), producing a referenced sign-list (according to the model that Serge and myself presented in Cambridge or following another model, it does not matter much) shall require scholarly work ? and comparing the shape of forms in publications without paying systematic attention to the phonemographic and semographic functions of these signs in context will hardly lead anywhere satisfying for the egyptological community.

A PhD student coming from the university of Leiden is about to start a 4 year fellowship here in two weeks. His goal is precisely to work on a documented sign-list in the framework of a collaboration between the Berlin Academy and Li?ge. You?re obviously much welcome to go ahead, as we can definitely integrate your result in the forthcoming online Sign-list, but I think that it?s good for you to know about the schedule of both institutions. In a nutshell, it?s certainly gonna take a bit of time on our side, but something should be available online in the next few years.

Best wishes,

St?phane

------------------------------------------------------
Chercheur qualifi? F.R.S.-FNRS

Universit? de Li?ge
Service d'?gyptologie
D?partement des sciences de l?Antiquit?
Place du 20-Ao?t,
B-4000 Li?ge

http://www.egypto.ulg.ac.be
------------------------------------------------------



Le 8 oct. 2016 ? 22:00, Michel Suignard <michel at suignard.com<mailto:michel at suignard.com>> a ?crit :

Even if a bit late, I want to add my feedback to this and mention that I have posted new materials.

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.
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).
My work is available as http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16257-n4751-hieroglyphs-new.pdf It includes a full copy of the database as of now.

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).

Now answering some of Mark-Jan remarks in more details:

- 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.

- 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?.

- 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.

- 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).

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.

Best regards.

Michel


From: Egyptian [mailto:egyptian-bounces at evertype.com] On Behalf Of Bob Richmond
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 6:11 AM
To: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com<mailto:everson at evertype.com>>
Cc: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS <egyptian at evertype.com<mailto:egyptian at evertype.com>>
Subject: Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode M?ller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS

Hi Michael

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.

(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).

Bob

From: Mark-Jan Nederhof<mailto:mn31 at st-andrews.ac.uk>
Sent: 19 September 2016 12:21
To: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS<mailto:egyptian at evertype.com>
Subject: Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode M?ller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS

With the 1071 signs in Unicode, there may at present be roughly two ways of
encoding texts:

(1) There are not-quite-so-serious users like me who, perhaps from a misplaced
sense of being principled, refuse to use dubious, ill-documented,
ill-standardized sign lists derived from the Hieroglyphica, and who therefore
only use the Unicode set, as that is at least stable. Whenever they come
across a sign that is not in Unicode, they have to use a place holder. (I then
tend to use a question mark in my encoding, with a footnote describing what
the sign depicts.)

(2) Then there are serious users, like TLA and Ramses, who cannot afford to
leave place holders in their encoding. They use one from an infinite supply of
extended sets, and won't bother with Unicode, because that is much too
restrictive. They realise fully well of course what is wrong with the extended
sets, but at present there is no other alternative given their requirements.

Neither of these types of users is happy with the status quo. The solution
could be a thoroughly designed extended set in Unicode, properly researched
and documented.  A solid list is in the making, in the form of the
Thot sign list.  The problem is that this takes time and a lot of effort, and
apparently some people are not patient enough to wait for the project to be
completed, or at least for the project to be advanced enough to cover most
signs.

So what is to be done in the short term? For the people in (2) only
a very comprehensive collection of signs in Unicode will suffice, and
make them switch from their own sign lists to Unicode. But this is not
forthcoming. For the people in (1), what would help tremendously are
incremental additions with the most frequent signs not yet in Unicode.
The most frequent signs also happen to be the ones that are best understood.
But incremental additions cost extra time and detract from the purpose of
building a more complete set.

In contrast, random small additions will be pointless and even harmful, because:

* Adding rare signs will not noticeably decrease the frequency of having
to leave place holders while encoding typical texts.

* The more unbalanced a sign list is, the more difficult it is for users to find their
way, and choose the most appropriate signs for an encoding.

* Premature additions may interfere with more additions later. Thorough and
systematic investigations will be needed for deciding between say graphical
variants and characters, and these investigations benefit from having a broad
view over the collection of signs in a comprehensive collection of texts, so
that the most appropriate choice can be made which shapes deserve to become
code points and be representatives of a range of variants.

Trying to fish accidental glyphs from Moeller that, probably for good reason,
didn't make their way into the Gardiner set leads exactly to an addition that
we don't need.  Sure, some font designers who have nothing better to do will
be happy to be able to draw a few more signs for their Unicode fonts, but the
extension will have zero benefit for people who are actually encoding texts.

What further bothers me is a repetition of mistakes from the past. What we
need is not only cross references, but a thorough and justified description of
what signs depict and mean. Only then can one answer the question how a sign
relates to other signs. I'm reminded of e.g. sign L008, a hapax sign (only one
obscure occurrence is known, with uncertain reading) that has been put under
the insects, for no reason that anyone can remember, and probably incorrectly.
Such things should never have happened. But if the same procedures are
followed for the next addition to the Unicode sign list, such calamities will
happen again.

By including even signs from Moeller that are in footnotes one is scraping the
barrel. Are we really so desperate to add as many signs as possible, no matter
for how bad a reason?

For example, 13458 refers to v3p4n1, a footnote for Moeller 36, which is
clearly identifiable with Gardiner A008. Those who can read German see that
the footnote says that the dots above the sign in some graphical variants are
"filler points", and that the sign should _not_ be associated with another
sign that is not known from hieratic, and that other sign I would read as the
man sowing seeds (A060), an existing sign. Why then that 13458 is proposed as
addition is beyond me.

As I wrote earlier, you need to analyse the meaning of signs. Only then can
you make informed decisions whether a sign is new. In many cases this requires
expert knowledge of hieratic and/or looking at signs in context in the
original hieratic documents. Two examples I spotted during superficial inspection:

* Consider 13482 for Moeller 257. If this is _not_ K4 (as it obviously is
according to Goedicke and the reading "XA" in Moeller) then you need to
explain why not. What reading, use or purpose would set this sign apart from
this or any other existing sign?

* I suspect all of us may have made wrong guesses based on appearances.  For
example, A051 for Moeller 27 (here proposed as a new sign 13452) may be wrong.
Goedicke associates this with A042 instead. Because A51 and A42 share some
uses, e.g. first-person ending, looking at one or two occurrences in hieratic
texts may not even suffice to decide which is which.

Are we aware that obtaining any certainty on such matters will require serious
effort? Then the next question is, is it worth it? Or does it do more harm
than good?

Mark-Jan

On Friday 16 Sep 2016 14:58:19 Deborah W. Anderson wrote:
> Dear list members,
> Michael has submitted a preliminary proposal for additional characters,
> building on what he circulated at the Cambridge meeting.
> The document is located at:
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16250-n4741-moller-egyptian.pdf
>
> I have sent it on to the group at Mainz, and they will be able to comment on
> it by early October. I have also send it to Barbara L?scher in Basel.
>
> The proposal document mentions: "Experts are needed to carefully check
> Vervloesem's suggested mappings against Nederhof's
> and Richmond's suggested mappings."
>
> To assist in this endeavor, I created a spreadsheet showing the suggested
> mappings by Vervloesem, Richmond, and Nederhof for the newly proposed
> characters, as well as other characters in Moeller.
>
> The Excel spreadsheet is available at:
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.xlsx
> FYI: Grey highlighting in the spreadsheet indicates the newly proposed
> characters for which Vervloesem, Richmond, and/or Nederhof have proposed a
> mapping to Gardiner (/Unicode).
> Yellow highlighting indicates newly proposed characters for which there is
> no proposed mapping.
>
> A document describing the spreadsheet is posted at:
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.pdf  . (This
> document contains the spreadsheet but in very tiny print.)
>
> Let me know if there are others whom you suggest I send this message to.
>
> With best wishes,
> Debbie
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Egyptian mailing list
> Egyptian at evertype.com<mailto:Egyptian at evertype.com>
> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com


_______________________________________________
Egyptian mailing list
Egyptian at evertype.com<mailto:Egyptian at evertype.com>
http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com
_______________________________________________
Egyptian mailing list
Egyptian at evertype.com<mailto: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/20161010/3d2556ee/attachment.htm>

From s.polis at ulg.ac.be  Mon Oct 10 10:37:32 2016
From: s.polis at ulg.ac.be (=?utf-8?Q?St=C3=A9phane_polis?=)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:37:32 +0200
Subject: [Egyptian] 
 =?utf-8?q?Preliminary_proposal_to_encode_M=C3=B6ller?=
 =?utf-8?q?=27s_Egyptian_Hieroglyphs_in_the_SMP_of_the_UCS?=
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR1001MB106784BF95E362FBDDD97E5E91DB0@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <002401d21065$6ff34180$4fd9c480$@sonic.net>
 <1926839.bRjLxKCbEQ@thuis>
 <HE1PR1001MB1067502AF331099A4F8C6C6191C90@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <BN6PR02MB284907213EA3AC67F3C37851A2D90@BN6PR02MB2849.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <31767454-DB3C-4A0D-8440-20BEA69B7533@ulg.ac.be>
 <HE1PR1001MB106784BF95E362FBDDD97E5E91DB0@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <5E216349-337B-411F-ADE2-7C3AE57081DA@ulg.ac.be>

Hi Bob,
We are busy with the first implementation of the website and it?s difficult to give a realistic estimate at the moment, since the actual work of the PhD will start in two weeks from now. But I would say that the first categories (insects, etc.) should be available at some point between March and June 2017 for you to comment on and to use as a reliable source.
Best wishes,
St?phane

------------------------------------------------------
Chercheur qualifi? F.R.S.-FNRS

Universit? de Li?ge
Service d'?gyptologie
D?partement des sciences de l?Antiquit?
Place du 20-Ao?t,
B-4000 Li?ge

http://www.egypto.ulg.ac.be
------------------------------------------------------



> Le 10 oct. 2016 ? 11:31, Bob Richmond <bobqq at live.co.uk> a ?crit :
> 
> Hi St?phane
>  
> Good to hear  you?ve found funding to employ someone to work on sign-list documentation.
>  
> Have you any estimate as to when we can look forward to seeing something online?
>  
> Regards,
> Bob
>  
> From: St?phane polis <mailto:s.polis at ulg.ac.be>
> Sent: 10 October 2016 09:16
> To: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS <mailto:egyptian at evertype.com>
> Subject: Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode M?ller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS
>  
> Hi everyone, 
> 
> Thanks a lot for your message, Michel!
> 
> As mentioned during the Cambridge meeting (and stressed again in several mails by Mark-Jan), producing a referenced sign-list (according to the model that Serge and myself presented in Cambridge or following another model, it does not matter much) shall require scholarly work ? and comparing the shape of forms in publications without paying systematic attention to the phonemographic and semographic functions of these signs in context will hardly lead anywhere satisfying for the egyptological community. 
> 
> A PhD student coming from the university of Leiden is about to start a 4 year fellowship here in two weeks. His goal is precisely to work on a documented sign-list in the framework of a collaboration between the Berlin Academy and Li?ge. You?re obviously much welcome to go ahead, as we can definitely integrate your result in the forthcoming online Sign-list, but I think that it?s good for you to know about the schedule of both institutions. In a nutshell, it?s certainly gonna take a bit of time on our side, but something should be available online in the next few years.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> St?phane
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Chercheur qualifi? F.R.S.-FNRS
> 
> Universit? de Li?ge
> Service d'?gyptologie
> D?partement des sciences de l?Antiquit?
> Place du 20-Ao?t,
> B-4000 Li?ge
> 
> http://www.egypto.ulg.ac.be <http://www.egypto.ulg.ac.be/>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>> Le 8 oct. 2016 ? 22:00, Michel Suignard <michel at suignard.com <mailto:michel at suignard.com>> a ?crit :
>> 
>> Even if a bit late, I want to add my feedback to this and mention that I have posted new materials.
>>  
>> 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.
>> 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).
>> My work is available as http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16257-n4751-hieroglyphs-new.pdf <http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16257-n4751-hieroglyphs-new.pdf> It includes a full copy of the database as of now.
>>  
>> 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).
>>  
>> Now answering some of Mark-Jan remarks in more details:
>>  
>> - 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.
>>  
>> - 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?.
>>  
>> - 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.
>>  
>> - 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).
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>> Best regards.
>>  
>> Michel
>>  
>> ? <>
>> From: Egyptian [mailto:egyptian-bounces at evertype.com <mailto:egyptian-bounces at evertype.com>] On Behalf Of Bob Richmond
>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 6:11 AM
>> To: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com <mailto:everson at evertype.com>>
>> Cc: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS <egyptian at evertype.com <mailto:egyptian at evertype.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode M?ller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS
>>  
>> Hi Michael
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>> (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).
>>  
>> Bob
>>  
>> From: Mark-Jan Nederhof <mailto:mn31 at st-andrews.ac.uk>
>> Sent: 19 September 2016 12:21
>> To: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS <mailto:egyptian at evertype.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode M?ller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS
>>  
>> With the 1071 signs in Unicode, there may at present be roughly two ways of
>> encoding texts:
>> 
>> (1) There are not-quite-so-serious users like me who, perhaps from a misplaced
>> sense of being principled, refuse to use dubious, ill-documented,
>> ill-standardized sign lists derived from the Hieroglyphica, and who therefore
>> only use the Unicode set, as that is at least stable. Whenever they come
>> across a sign that is not in Unicode, they have to use a place holder. (I then
>> tend to use a question mark in my encoding, with a footnote describing what
>> the sign depicts.)
>> 
>> (2) Then there are serious users, like TLA and Ramses, who cannot afford to
>> leave place holders in their encoding. They use one from an infinite supply of
>> extended sets, and won't bother with Unicode, because that is much too
>> restrictive. They realise fully well of course what is wrong with the extended
>> sets, but at present there is no other alternative given their requirements.
>> 
>> Neither of these types of users is happy with the status quo. The solution
>> could be a thoroughly designed extended set in Unicode, properly researched
>> and documented.  A solid list is in the making, in the form of the
>> Thot sign list.  The problem is that this takes time and a lot of effort, and
>> apparently some people are not patient enough to wait for the project to be
>> completed, or at least for the project to be advanced enough to cover most
>> signs.
>> 
>> So what is to be done in the short term? For the people in (2) only
>> a very comprehensive collection of signs in Unicode will suffice, and
>> make them switch from their own sign lists to Unicode. But this is not
>> forthcoming. For the people in (1), what would help tremendously are 
>> incremental additions with the most frequent signs not yet in Unicode.
>> The most frequent signs also happen to be the ones that are best understood.
>> But incremental additions cost extra time and detract from the purpose of
>> building a more complete set.
>> 
>> In contrast, random small additions will be pointless and even harmful, because:
>> 
>> * Adding rare signs will not noticeably decrease the frequency of having
>> to leave place holders while encoding typical texts.
>> 
>> * The more unbalanced a sign list is, the more difficult it is for users to find their
>> way, and choose the most appropriate signs for an encoding.
>> 
>> * Premature additions may interfere with more additions later. Thorough and
>> systematic investigations will be needed for deciding between say graphical
>> variants and characters, and these investigations benefit from having a broad
>> view over the collection of signs in a comprehensive collection of texts, so
>> that the most appropriate choice can be made which shapes deserve to become
>> code points and be representatives of a range of variants.
>> 
>> Trying to fish accidental glyphs from Moeller that, probably for good reason,
>> didn't make their way into the Gardiner set leads exactly to an addition that
>> we don't need.  Sure, some font designers who have nothing better to do will
>> be happy to be able to draw a few more signs for their Unicode fonts, but the
>> extension will have zero benefit for people who are actually encoding texts.
>> 
>> What further bothers me is a repetition of mistakes from the past. What we
>> need is not only cross references, but a thorough and justified description of
>> what signs depict and mean. Only then can one answer the question how a sign
>> relates to other signs. I'm reminded of e.g. sign L008, a hapax sign (only one
>> obscure occurrence is known, with uncertain reading) that has been put under
>> the insects, for no reason that anyone can remember, and probably incorrectly.
>> Such things should never have happened. But if the same procedures are
>> followed for the next addition to the Unicode sign list, such calamities will
>> happen again.
>> 
>> By including even signs from Moeller that are in footnotes one is scraping the
>> barrel. Are we really so desperate to add as many signs as possible, no matter
>> for how bad a reason?
>> 
>> For example, 13458 refers to v3p4n1, a footnote for Moeller 36, which is
>> clearly identifiable with Gardiner A008. Those who can read German see that
>> the footnote says that the dots above the sign in some graphical variants are
>> "filler points", and that the sign should _not_ be associated with another
>> sign that is not known from hieratic, and that other sign I would read as the
>> man sowing seeds (A060), an existing sign. Why then that 13458 is proposed as
>> addition is beyond me.
>> 
>> As I wrote earlier, you need to analyse the meaning of signs. Only then can
>> you make informed decisions whether a sign is new. In many cases this requires
>> expert knowledge of hieratic and/or looking at signs in context in the
>> original hieratic documents. Two examples I spotted during superficial inspection:
>> 
>> * Consider 13482 for Moeller 257. If this is _not_ K4 (as it obviously is
>> according to Goedicke and the reading "XA" in Moeller) then you need to
>> explain why not. What reading, use or purpose would set this sign apart from
>> this or any other existing sign?
>> 
>> * I suspect all of us may have made wrong guesses based on appearances.  For
>> example, A051 for Moeller 27 (here proposed as a new sign 13452) may be wrong.
>> Goedicke associates this with A042 instead. Because A51 and A42 share some
>> uses, e.g. first-person ending, looking at one or two occurrences in hieratic
>> texts may not even suffice to decide which is which. 
>> 
>> Are we aware that obtaining any certainty on such matters will require serious
>> effort? Then the next question is, is it worth it? Or does it do more harm
>> than good?
>> 
>> Mark-Jan
>> 
>> On Friday 16 Sep 2016 14:58:19 Deborah W. Anderson wrote:
>> > Dear list members,
>> > Michael has submitted a preliminary proposal for additional characters,
>> > building on what he circulated at the Cambridge meeting.
>> > The document is located at:
>> > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16250-n4741-moller-egyptian.pdf <http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16250-n4741-moller-egyptian.pdf>  
>> > 
>> > I have sent it on to the group at Mainz, and they will be able to comment on
>> > it by early October. I have also send it to Barbara L?scher in Basel.
>> > 
>> > The proposal document mentions: "Experts are needed to carefully check
>> > Vervloesem's suggested mappings against Nederhof's
>> > and Richmond's suggested mappings."
>> > 
>> > To assist in this endeavor, I created a spreadsheet showing the suggested
>> > mappings by Vervloesem, Richmond, and Nederhof for the newly proposed
>> > characters, as well as other characters in Moeller.
>> > 
>> > The Excel spreadsheet is available at:
>> > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.xlsx <http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.xlsx>  
>> > FYI: Grey highlighting in the spreadsheet indicates the newly proposed
>> > characters for which Vervloesem, Richmond, and/or Nederhof have proposed a
>> > mapping to Gardiner (/Unicode).
>> > Yellow highlighting indicates newly proposed characters for which there is
>> > no proposed mapping.
>> > 
>> > A document describing the spreadsheet is posted at:
>> > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.pdf <http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16251-n4742-moller-mapping.pdf>  . (This
>> > document contains the spreadsheet but in very tiny print.) 
>> > 
>> > Let me know if there are others whom you suggest I send this message to. 
>> > 
>> > With best wishes,
>> > Debbie
>> > 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Egyptian mailing list
>> > Egyptian at evertype.com <mailto:Egyptian at evertype.com>
>> > http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com <http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Egyptian mailing list
>> Egyptian at evertype.com <mailto:Egyptian at evertype.com>
>> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com <http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com>_______________________________________________
>> Egyptian mailing list
>> Egyptian at evertype.com <mailto:Egyptian at evertype.com>
>> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_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/20161010/fe7ebbc0/attachment.htm>

From michel at suignard.com  Tue Oct 11 20:15:37 2016
From: michel at suignard.com (Michel Suignard)
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 19:15:37 +0000
Subject: [Egyptian] 
 =?iso-8859-1?q?Preliminary_proposal_to_encode_M=F6lle?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?r=27s_Egyptian_Hieroglyphs_in_the_SMP_of_the_UCS?=
In-Reply-To: <5E216349-337B-411F-ADE2-7C3AE57081DA@ulg.ac.be>
References: <002401d21065$6ff34180$4fd9c480$@sonic.net>
 <1926839.bRjLxKCbEQ@thuis>
 <HE1PR1001MB1067502AF331099A4F8C6C6191C90@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <BN6PR02MB284907213EA3AC67F3C37851A2D90@BN6PR02MB2849.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <31767454-DB3C-4A0D-8440-20BEA69B7533@ulg.ac.be>
 <HE1PR1001MB106784BF95E362FBDDD97E5E91DB0@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <5E216349-337B-411F-ADE2-7C3AE57081DA@ulg.ac.be>
Message-ID: <BN6PR02MB28493230F284D5FA2F49E9C9A2DA0@BN6PR02MB2849.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

Reacting to some feedback
First from St?phane:
<<
As mentioned during the Cambridge meeting (and stressed again in several mails by Mark-Jan), producing a referenced sign-list (according to the model that Serge and myself presented in Cambridge or following another model, it does not matter much) shall require scholarly work - and comparing the shape of forms in publications without paying systematic attention to the phonemographic and semographic functions of these signs in context will hardly lead anywhere satisfying for the egyptological community.
>>
When doing my work, I obviously saw these phonograms and logograms associated with the signs and I have observed that many of the glyphs share the same values. There is also not a complete consistency in how these are presented, sometimes in English/French/German, some in transliterated Egyptian. Sometimes a value is provided w/o clear determination whether it is phonogram, logogram, determinative, other. I am not ignoring that aspect; it is just that I would like someone better qualified than I to fill these values.

In historic script (or historic segment of modern use script) there is always a tension between identity and reference. The identity requires scholarly work, but at the same time even discussing the signs requires references. And references tend to be established visually. This is happening all the times in the CJK (Han) universe. If you wait for an authoritative scholarly analysis of the full set of Hieroglyphs you may never any result. But even now, I see that the Hieroglyphica reference numbers are frequently used to identify signs in various publications. So in some aspect they have acquired an 'identity' of their own. I still think it is possible to identify a large set of extended hieroglyphs that can be encoded, even if ultimately some of them are not identified immediately or even maybe never identified. Adding cross-reference by comparing various sources strengthen the reference validity and then allow the scholarly work associated with establishing the identity.

>From Serge
<< I would like to add that focusing on a tree-like taxonomy of signs based on their description is maybe not needed - at least, not needed with
a very fine granularity.

Tree-like representations have the advantage that they can be published on paper. But, with computers, we might
get something better and more versatile. I have made such an attempt with JSesh hieroglyphic palette : instead of trying to fit signs like A429
(man with lion) in the category ? man ? or in the category ? animal ?, I have
used multiple description criteria.

Of course, the JSesh system, which simply uses tags, is not perfect. It would be better to have a kind of thesaurus on the tags themselves (lion < feline, for instance) ; and to have
an actual description language on the signs (so that ? MAN HOLDING X8 ? could be used as part of a description. JSesh would describe such a sign by having
the simple tag ? HOLDING_SOMETHING ?, on one hand, and by listing X8 as part of the glyph.
(which allows me to find quite quickly in the JSesh palette that the said sign is A176).

Of course, the taxonomy is a useful starting point for producing this language. If you look at JSesh's palette, you will find many tags which come from the IFAO categories.
>>
The tree I am proposing has only two levels, so on the granularity level we are not necessarily that much apart. I just find a category such as the 'A-Men and his occupations' with over 500 members just not manageable w/o at least another level. I don't see a shallow tree based taxonomy and a computer approach as contradictory. In fact, they complement each other. For example, A429 (interesting that we are both using a Hieroglyphica reference here) may be categorized in 'A(21)-man and animal', it can still be described in the database as containing both a man and a lion. Therefore, allowing a search on the description field would allow its retrieval, independently of its location in the tree.

Similarly, for A176, although it is included in a category 'A(15)-man standing, composed with a hieroglyphic sign', it can be described as composed of a man standing and X8 (bread), and tags of the sort 'holding something' could also be introduced in a database. Btw A176 is solidly attested and is a prime candidate for encoding.

I don't see all these efforts as contradictory, however to be able to converge we need to have some common references. Fortunately, as demonstrated above we have already some basis for this (such as Hieroglyphica). We probably disagree on how fast we can get some encoding in Unicode but we don't have to solve that right away.

And
<<
- On one hand, printed fonts might hide relevant details, hiding two distinct signs behind one code ;
- On the other hand, the egyptian had exactly the same problem, and originally distinct signs might merge due to some graphical or phonetical proximity.
>>
On the first case, you would encode a new sign and dis-unify the now distinct identities,
On the second case, you would deprecate the identity of the redundant character(s). The deprecated character stays encoded, but are no longer associated with their former identity. None of this is perfect but it is an accepted practice in Unicode.

Best regards,

Michel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20161011/63761e2a/attachment.htm>

From bobqq at live.co.uk  Wed Oct 19 15:42:33 2016
From: bobqq at live.co.uk (Bob Richmond)
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:42:33 +0000
Subject: [Egyptian] MdC analysis for Unicode Repertoire Extensions
Message-ID: <DB6PR1001MB10610FDF06E39C59A238A8F991D20@DB6PR1001MB1061.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

To help with work on Unicode Repertoire Extensions, I?ve put a web app online to deal with related MdC analysis.

Users of MdC in general may also find this useful for proofreading etc.

See http://hieroglyphseverywhere.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/mdc-analysis-for-unicode-repertoire.html.

Bob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20161019/a331b160/attachment.htm>

From s.polis at ulg.ac.be  Thu Oct 20 08:34:40 2016
From: s.polis at ulg.ac.be (=?utf-8?Q?St=C3=A9phane_polis?=)
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:34:40 +0200
Subject: [Egyptian] MdC analysis for Unicode Repertoire Extensions
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR1001MB10610FDF06E39C59A238A8F991D20@DB6PR1001MB1061.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <DB6PR1001MB10610FDF06E39C59A238A8F991D20@DB6PR1001MB1061.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <53F8050A-66D4-4063-8399-9AF76CB87C1B@ulg.ac.be>

Thanks for this, Bob!
It shall definitely be a useful tool, indeed!
All the best,
St.

------------------------------------------------------
Chercheur qualifi? F.R.S.-FNRS

Universit? de Li?ge
Service d'?gyptologie
D?partement des sciences de l?Antiquit?
Place du 20-Ao?t,
B-4000 Li?ge

http://www.egypto.ulg.ac.be
------------------------------------------------------



> Le 19 oct. 2016 ? 16:42, Bob Richmond <bobqq at live.co.uk> a ?crit :
> 
> To help with work on Unicode Repertoire Extensions, I?ve put a web app online to deal with related MdC analysis.
>  
> Users of MdC in general may also find this useful for proofreading etc.
>  
> See http://hieroglyphseverywhere.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/mdc-analysis-for-unicode-repertoire.html <http://hieroglyphseverywhere.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/mdc-analysis-for-unicode-repertoire.html>.
>  
> Bob
> _______________________________________________
> Egyptian mailing list
> Egyptian at evertype.com <mailto:Egyptian at evertype.com>
> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_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/20161020/39080b78/attachment.htm>

From bobqq at live.co.uk  Fri Oct 21 12:58:05 2016
From: bobqq at live.co.uk (Bob Richmond)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:58:05 +0000
Subject: [Egyptian] MdC analysis for Unicode Repertoire Extensions
In-Reply-To: <53F8050A-66D4-4063-8399-9AF76CB87C1B@ulg.ac.be>
References: <DB6PR1001MB10610FDF06E39C59A238A8F991D20@DB6PR1001MB1061.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>,
 <53F8050A-66D4-4063-8399-9AF76CB87C1B@ulg.ac.be>
Message-ID: <HE1PR1001MB10671A4D5A3892060A6ED1F091D40@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Hi St?phane

Thanks. Let me know of any ideas for improvement. Or bugs!

One tip. If you have a list of hieroglyphs you want to check quickly against Unicode (2009), analysis is fairly tolerant about presence of MdC +s and so on. For example if you copy and paste the following into the analysis app it will report successfully.

A28
A30
A33E
A35
A4
A40
A40B
A40C
A40D
A40E
A40F
A41
A42 A42A A42B A42C A43B
A47 A47D
A40\ +lUsed in cartouches

This ?tolerant? analysis has its positives and negatives and may not always work but for repertoire purposes it has proved more convenient than a strict MdC parser.

Bob


From: St?phane polis<mailto:s.polis at ulg.ac.be>
Sent: 20 October 2016 08:36
To: Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS<mailto:egyptian at evertype.com>
Subject: Re: [Egyptian] MdC analysis for Unicode Repertoire Extensions

Thanks for this, Bob!
It shall definitely be a useful tool, indeed!
All the best,
St.

------------------------------------------------------
Chercheur qualifi? F.R.S.-FNRS

Universit? de Li?ge
Service d'?gyptologie
D?partement des sciences de l?Antiquit?
Place du 20-Ao?t,
B-4000 Li?ge

http://www.egypto.ulg.ac.be
------------------------------------------------------



Le 19 oct. 2016 ? 16:42, Bob Richmond <bobqq at live.co.uk<mailto:bobqq at live.co.uk>> a ?crit :

To help with work on Unicode Repertoire Extensions, I?ve put a web app online to deal with related MdC analysis.

Users of MdC in general may also find this useful for proofreading etc.

See http://hieroglyphseverywhere.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/mdc-analysis-for-unicode-repertoire.html.

Bob
_______________________________________________
Egyptian mailing list
Egyptian at evertype.com<mailto: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/20161021/68a07d80/attachment.htm>

From bobqq at live.co.uk  Fri Oct 28 13:06:10 2016
From: bobqq at live.co.uk (Bob Richmond)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:06:10 +0000
Subject: [Egyptian] Analysis of Unicode Egyptian hieroglyphs in a collection
 of MdC-coded transcriptions
Message-ID: <HE1PR1001MB10673D6565DE10AB652E1B9291AD0@HE1PR1001MB1067.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Hi All

I?ve applied the MdC analysis web app announced last week to a collection of 180 MdC files (featuring about 240,000 hieroglyphs) and produced a summary report. See http://hieroglyphseverywhere.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/analysis-of-unicode-egyptian.html.

I hope this gives some insight into the practical impact of Unicode repertoire discussions.

Bob

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://evertype.com/pipermail/egyptian_evertype.com/attachments/20161028/7393e274/attachment.htm>