[Egyptian] Preliminary proposal to encode Möller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP of the UCS

[Serge Rosmorduc]

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 sḫm, ḫrp and ꜥbꜥ. Should it be encoded ? 
First, looking at the examples, there are only two families of signs: sḫm/ꜥbꜣ on the one hand, and ḫrp on the other.
Egyptologist already do it for the couple H6 𓆄/ H6A𓆅, using a small reference to the hieratic diacritic strokes used to distinguish  the signs (mꜥꜣ.t vs šw). 

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 Möller I, the scribes seem to occasionally use 
a diacritic stroke to distinguish sḫm, whereas in Möller II, it’s ḫrp 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 (𓀻) do.

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


Regarding Michel’s list: Stéphane 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_égyptiens._Entre_lexique_et_paléographie


> - 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>