From s.polis at ulg.ac.be Thu Jun 1 07:44:54 2017 From: s.polis at ulg.ac.be (=?utf-8?Q?St=C3=A9phane_polis?=) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 08:44:54 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> Message-ID: <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> Hi guys, I definitely agree with Daniel. Best wishes, 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 31 mai 2017 ? 21:04, Daniel Werning a ?crit : > > Dear Bob, > (Dear Michel Suignard,) > > Actually, I like the earlier proposal L2/17-076 for an "LATIN ... LETTER EGYPTOLOGICAL YOD" much more. > > The new proposal L2/17-076R2 calls the "half circle" above the "i" a "... WITH SPIRITUS LENIS" and the shape of the half circle looks more like a "quotes" sign -- like there is a dot in the upper part (future encoders will certainly design it that way due to the name "... WITH SPIRITUS LENIS"). But this is not how it is supposed to look like. It is supposed to look like half an "EGYPTOLOGICAL ALIF". Compare > http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~dwernin/temp/EgyptologicalYod.pdf (with scan from Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, and others). > > Therefore, I take issue with the new proposal as far as it aims at Egyptological encoding (*wrong shape, misleading name*). > > Greetings, > Daniel (Werning) > https://www.archaeologie.hu-berlin.de/de/assoziiert/daniel_werning > > Am 31.05.2017 um 19:27 schrieb Bob Richmond: >> Hi All >> I posted a note on recent documents (and developments) on Unicode and hieroglyphic on http://hieroglyphseverywhere.blogspot.co.uk/. >> I expect there will be plenty to discuss in weeks and months to come. >> Hopefully the Yod issue is settled once and for all but if anyone has a problem with the two characters proposed please speak up now so we don?t waste a year or two as happened with hieroglyph format controls. >> Bob >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From rosmord at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 10:05:38 2017 From: rosmord at gmail.com (Serge Rosmorduc) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 11:05:38 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> Message-ID: <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> Agreed too ? In any case, the point Daniel has made, that in a given font, the shape of the accent should be consistent with the shape of the Aleph, should be mentioned. Regarding the examples, the shapes of i+U0313 in Gentium Plus is also correct and can also be given as example (for the lower-case char only, the upper-case accent is currently placed in the wrong position): (The upper-case has the accent in the wrong position, of course). Best regards, Serge -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-4.png Type: image/png Size: 24765 bytes Desc: not available URL: From everson at evertype.com Thu Jun 1 13:17:16 2017 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:17:16 +0100 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> Message-ID: <9C09DF59-6A6D-4539-A798-96A042C477CC@evertype.com> Daniel, The problem is that we are adding six letters. I i with diacritic for Egyptian, and A a U u with the same diacritic for Ugaritic. We can?t name those EGYPTOLOGICAL A and EGYPTOLOGICAL U. > On 31 May 2017, at 20:04, Daniel Werning wrote: > > Dear Bob, > (Dear Michel Suignard,) > > Actually, I like the earlier proposal L2/17-076 for an "LATIN ... LETTER EGYPTOLOGICAL YOD" much more. > > The new proposal L2/17-076R2 calls the "half circle" above the "i" a "... WITH SPIRITUS LENIS" and the shape of the half circle looks more like a "quotes" sign -- like there is a dot in the upper part (future encoders will certainly design it that way due to the name "... WITH SPIRITUS LENIS"). But this is not how it is supposed to look like. It is supposed to look like half an "EGYPTOLOGICAL ALIF". Compare > http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~dwernin/temp/EgyptologicalYod.pdf (with scan from Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, and others). > > Therefore, I take issue with the new proposal as far as it aims at Egyptological encoding (*wrong shape, misleading name*). > > Greetings, > Daniel (Werning) From everson at evertype.com Thu Jun 1 13:25:39 2017 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:25:39 +0100 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1 Jun 2017, at 10:05, Serge Rosmorduc wrote: > > Agreed too ? In any case, the point Daniel has made, that in a given font, the shape of the accent should be consistent with the shape of the Aleph, should be mentioned. ?Mentioned" where? I?m attaching the reference glyphs for the code charts, as well as older documents on this topic. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2017-06-01 at 13.25.00.png Type: image/png Size: 74222 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: n3382r-egyptological-yod.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 200901 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: n3487-egyptological-yod.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 239826 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From everson at evertype.com Thu Jun 1 13:45:46 2017 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:45:46 +0100 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> Message-ID: <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Lepsius, the source of this mark, clearly identifies it with the spiritus lenis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lepsius-faucal.png Type: image/png Size: 82314 bytes Desc: not available URL: From odusseus at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 14:21:37 2017 From: odusseus at gmail.com (Marwan Kilani) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:21:37 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: Couldn't they just be called "glottal stop + a", "glottal stop + i", "glottal stop + u" or something like that? Because linguistically speaking, this is what those characters represent, both in Egyptian and in Ugaritic (and in whatever other language one wants to use them). Marwan Kilani On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Michael Everson wrote: > Lepsius, the source of this mark, clearly identifies it with the spiritus > lenis. > > > _______________________________________________ > Egyptian mailing list > Egyptian at evertype.com > http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lepsius-faucal.png Type: image/png Size: 82314 bytes Desc: not available URL: From odusseus at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 14:27:23 2017 From: odusseus at gmail.com (Marwan Kilani) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:27:23 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: Besides, Lepsius calls it "spiritus lenis" because I doubt that at the time there was a specific term for "glottal stop", but it had already been suggested that the Greek character "spiritus lenis" was the equivalent of a semitic aliph, i.e. the equivalent of a glottal stop. However, on the one hand we don't really know if the Greek "spiritus lenis" was really a glottal stop (i.e. an aliph, i.e. the equivalent of the phoneme meant in the egyptian transliteration), and on the other during the past century our perception of phonetics in general has evolved, and therefore we have terms, like "glottal stop", which are more precise and accurate than those used at the time of Lepsius. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Marwan Kilani wrote: > Couldn't they just be called "glottal stop + a", "glottal stop + i", > "glottal stop + u" or something like that? > > Because linguistically speaking, this is what those characters represent, > both in Egyptian and in Ugaritic (and in whatever other language one wants > to use them). > > Marwan Kilani > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Michael Everson > wrote: > >> Lepsius, the source of this mark, clearly identifies it with the spiritus >> lenis. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Egyptian mailing list >> Egyptian at evertype.com >> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lepsius-faucal.png Type: image/png Size: 82314 bytes Desc: not available URL: From everson at evertype.com Thu Jun 1 14:34:33 2017 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 14:34:33 +0100 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: Spiritus lenis is a name for the diacritical mark. No, we cannot use names LATIN CAPITAL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP PLUS A. The requirement is for the names to be unique identifiers. LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH SPIRITUS LENIS is that. Michael > On 1 Jun 2017, at 14:27, Marwan Kilani wrote: > > Besides, Lepsius calls it "spiritus lenis" because I doubt that at the time there was a specific term for "glottal stop", but it had already been suggested that the Greek character "spiritus lenis" was the equivalent of a semitic aliph, i.e. the equivalent of a glottal stop. > However, on the one hand we don't really know if the Greek "spiritus lenis" was really a glottal stop (i.e. an aliph, i.e. the equivalent of the phoneme meant in the egyptian transliteration), and on the other during the past century our perception of phonetics in general has evolved, and therefore we have terms, like "glottal stop", which are more precise and accurate than those used at the time of Lepsius. > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Marwan Kilani wrote: > Couldn't they just be called "glottal stop + a", "glottal stop + i", "glottal stop + u" or something like that? > > Because linguistically speaking, this is what those characters represent, both in Egyptian and in Ugaritic (and in whatever other language one wants to use them). > > Marwan Kilani From s.polis at ulg.ac.be Thu Jun 1 14:37:51 2017 From: s.polis at ulg.ac.be (=?utf-8?Q?St=C3=A9phane_polis?=) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:37:51 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: Not sure that I get what you mean here, Michael. Could you be more explicit, What would be the problem with: LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH GLOTTAL STOP? ------------------------------------------------------ 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 1 juin 2017 ? 15:34, Michael Everson a ?crit : > > Spiritus lenis is a name for the diacritical mark. > > No, we cannot use names LATIN CAPITAL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP PLUS A. > > The requirement is for the names to be unique identifiers. LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH SPIRITUS LENIS is that. > > Michael > >> On 1 Jun 2017, at 14:27, Marwan Kilani wrote: >> >> Besides, Lepsius calls it "spiritus lenis" because I doubt that at the time there was a specific term for "glottal stop", but it had already been suggested that the Greek character "spiritus lenis" was the equivalent of a semitic aliph, i.e. the equivalent of a glottal stop. >> However, on the one hand we don't really know if the Greek "spiritus lenis" was really a glottal stop (i.e. an aliph, i.e. the equivalent of the phoneme meant in the egyptian transliteration), and on the other during the past century our perception of phonetics in general has evolved, and therefore we have terms, like "glottal stop", which are more precise and accurate than those used at the time of Lepsius. >> >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Marwan Kilani wrote: >> Couldn't they just be called "glottal stop + a", "glottal stop + i", "glottal stop + u" or something like that? >> >> Because linguistically speaking, this is what those characters represent, both in Egyptian and in Ugaritic (and in whatever other language one wants to use them). >> >> Marwan Kilani > > > > _______________________________________________ > Egyptian mailing list > Egyptian at evertype.com > http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From odusseus at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 14:44:47 2017 From: odusseus at gmail.com (Marwan Kilani) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:44:47 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH GLOTTAL STOP" Yes, that's what I meant.. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:37 PM, St?phane polis wrote: > Not sure that I get what you mean here, Michael. > > Could you be more explicit, What would be the problem with: LATIN CAPITAL > LETTER I WITH GLOTTAL STOP? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 1 juin 2017 ? 15:34, Michael Everson a ?crit : > > Spiritus lenis is a name for the diacritical mark. > > No, we cannot use names LATIN CAPITAL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP PLUS A. > > The requirement is for the names to be unique identifiers. LATIN CAPITAL > LETTER I WITH SPIRITUS LENIS is that. > > Michael > > On 1 Jun 2017, at 14:27, Marwan Kilani wrote: > > Besides, Lepsius calls it "spiritus lenis" because I doubt that at the > time there was a specific term for "glottal stop", but it had already been > suggested that the Greek character "spiritus lenis" was the equivalent of a > semitic aliph, i.e. the equivalent of a glottal stop. > However, on the one hand we don't really know if the Greek "spiritus > lenis" was really a glottal stop (i.e. an aliph, i.e. the equivalent of the > phoneme meant in the egyptian transliteration), and on the other during the > past century our perception of phonetics in general has evolved, and > therefore we have terms, like "glottal stop", which are more precise and > accurate than those used at the time of Lepsius. > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Marwan Kilani wrote: > Couldn't they just be called "glottal stop + a", "glottal stop + i", > "glottal stop + u" or something like that? > > Because linguistically speaking, this is what those characters represent, > both in Egyptian and in Ugaritic (and in whatever other language one wants > to use them). > > Marwan Kilani > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From frederic.grosshans at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 14:44:38 2017 From: frederic.grosshans at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Fr=c3=a9d=c3=a9ric_Grosshans?=) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:44:38 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: Le 01/06/2017 ? 15:37, St?phane polis a ?crit : > Not sure that I get what you mean here, Michael. > > Could you be more explicit, What would be the problem with: LATIN > CAPITAL LETTER I WITH GLOTTAL STOP? I guess because ? U+0294 LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP does not look like the proposed character, even if it could denote the same phoneme: Unicode is a character encoding standard, not a phonetic standard From frederic.grosshans at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 15:05:31 2017 From: frederic.grosshans at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Fr=c3=a9d=c3=a9ric_Grosshans?=) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:05:31 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: <014d9e90-39e2-2aaf-f4c9-e1c0b22a6460@gmail.com> Le 01/06/2017 ? 15:21, Marwan Kilani a ?crit : > Couldn't they just be called "glottal stop + a", "glottal stop + i", > "glottal stop + u" or something like that? > > Because linguistically speaking, this is what those characters > represent, both in Egyptian and in Ugaritic (and in whatever other > language one wants to use them). Other latin-written languages use other (already encoded) characters for glottal stops : names like glottal stop + a would be ambiguous, and would likely be forbidden anyway because it could correspond to ?named sequences?. The existing (and actively) used characters are ? U+0294 LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP ? U+02C0 MODIFIER LETTER GLOTTAL STOP ? U+0241 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP ? U+0242 LATIN SMALL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP Leading to ?a, ?a, and the cased pair ?A ?a, which are all different from the character discussed here. > _______________________________________________ > 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 From odusseus at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 15:14:22 2017 From: odusseus at gmail.com (Marwan Kilani) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:14:22 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: I'm quite sure that the IPA glottal stop character does derive from the Greek spiritus lenis, and the fact that it does not look the same is merely an historical typographic distinction, and the fact that Egyptological glottal stop often looks more like the greek spiritus lenis, rather than the IPA glottal stop character is probably merely due to the fact that Egyptology as a field was excluded (or did not pay too attention) to the typographical developments taking place in linguistics and standard phonetic transcriptions, rather than being due to an explicit desire of Egyptologist of keeping their "glottal stop" graphically closer to the Greek spiritus lenis, rather than to the IPA glottal stop. This considered, I would say that for both Egyptology and Ugaritic studies, having a series of characters "a/i/u with glottal stop" would be totally fine, being linguistically accurate. And actually would also have the positive consequence of bringing our fields a bit closer to standard linguistic conventions. If the problem is the ambiguity of the name, one can think to some more precise definition, such as "a/i/u with superimposed glottal stop" or something like that. And if someone wants such superimposed glottal stop to look more like a spiritus lenis, one can always create a font where it is drawn lake that. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Fr?d?ric Grosshans < frederic.grosshans at gmail.com> wrote: > Le 01/06/2017 ? 15:37, St?phane polis a ?crit : > >> Not sure that I get what you mean here, Michael. >> >> Could you be more explicit, What would be the problem with: LATIN CAPITAL >> LETTER I WITH GLOTTAL STOP? >> > I guess because ? U+0294 LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP does not look like the > proposed character, even if it could denote the same phoneme: Unicode is a > character encoding standard, not a phonetic standard > > > > _______________________________________________ > Egyptian mailing list > Egyptian at evertype.com > http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From everson at evertype.com Thu Jun 1 15:20:36 2017 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:20:36 +0100 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: On 1 Jun 2017, at 14:37, St?phane polis wrote: > > Not sure that I get what you mean here, Michael. > > Could you be more explicit, What would be the problem with: LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH GLOTTAL STOP? The diacritic is not a glottal stop. ????????? It?s a spiritus lenis. Michael From everson at evertype.com Thu Jun 1 15:23:38 2017 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:23:38 +0100 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: <03D089D2-584E-4E84-B74B-3453076DCBD4@evertype.com> Guys, I?ve been trying to get this stuff encoded for SEVENTEEN YEARS. Kindly do not bitch about the names. Be happy. Thank you. Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: n2241-egypt.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 43827 bytes Desc: not available URL: From odusseus at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 15:43:53 2017 From: odusseus at gmail.com (Marwan Kilani) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:43:53 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: The diacritic does represent a superimposed glottal stop, while it does not represent (anymore) a spiritus lenis (which in today's technical terminology, which has changed since the time of Lepsius, is a diacritic of greek orthography, not of Egyptian transliteration orthography).. That fact that in the fonts commonly used in egyptology it may look like a spiritus lenis is due to historical topographical reasons (which are not rules set in stone, and should not have the priority over an accurate linguistic description of the function of such diacritic), but it does not mean that it is a spiritus lenis. Also because I think that the aim should be to encode the transliteration used by Egyptologists today as Egyptologists understand it today, not the transliteration used by Lepsius as Lepsius understood it more than a century ago. And it is enough to have a look at recent publications such as Allen's "Middle Egyptian Grammar", Allen's "The Ancient Egyptian Language", Loprieno's "Ancient Egyptian - a linguistic introduction" or even something more popular such as Collier & Manley "How to read Egyptian Hieroglyphs" to realise that today *no one* of them talks about "spiritus lenis", but they all refer, in various ways to "glottal stops". Because this is what that diacritic is meant to represent. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Michael Everson wrote: > On 1 Jun 2017, at 14:37, St?phane polis wrote: > > > > Not sure that I get what you mean here, Michael. > > > > Could you be more explicit, What would be the problem with: LATIN > CAPITAL LETTER I WITH GLOTTAL STOP? > > The diacritic is not a glottal stop. ????????? > > It?s a spiritus lenis. > > Michael > _______________________________________________ > Egyptian mailing list > Egyptian at evertype.com > http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From odusseus at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 15:57:57 2017 From: odusseus at gmail.com (Marwan Kilani) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:57:57 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: Also, it would be worth remembering that Egyptologists (and "Ugaritologists") use these characters to represent and express *linguistic* concepts, *not* typographical concepts. If we use in our transliterations the character "i + semicircular diacritic on top of it" it is to represent a *linguistic* concept, i.e. the fact that a given sign may linguistically behave both like a "i" and like a *glottal stop*. We don't use such character to indicate the typographical anecdote that in the 19th century people fancied using the spiritus lenis to represent the glottal stop. This is irrelevant, from and for an egyptological point of view. therefore, that "semicircular diacritic on top of it" should be equated with what it represents, i.e. a glottal stop, and not with what it may looks like, i.e. a spiritus lenis. Because egyptologist use it (and will use the new character you want to encode in Unicode) because of what it linguistically represents, not because of what 19th century people fancied and not because of what it looks like in some fonts. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Marwan Kilani wrote: > The diacritic does represent a superimposed glottal stop, while it does > not represent (anymore) a spiritus lenis (which in today's technical > terminology, which has changed since the time of Lepsius, is a diacritic of > greek orthography, not of Egyptian transliteration orthography).. > > That fact that in the fonts commonly used in egyptology it may look like a > spiritus lenis is due to historical topographical reasons (which are not > rules set in stone, and should not have the priority over an accurate > linguistic description of the function of such diacritic), but it does not > mean that it is a spiritus lenis. > > Also because I think that the aim should be to encode the transliteration > used by Egyptologists today as Egyptologists understand it today, not the > transliteration used by Lepsius as Lepsius understood it more than a > century ago. > > And it is enough to have a look at recent publications such as Allen's > "Middle Egyptian Grammar", Allen's "The Ancient Egyptian Language", > Loprieno's "Ancient Egyptian - a linguistic introduction" or even something > more popular such as Collier & Manley "How to read Egyptian Hieroglyphs" to > realise that today *no one* of them talks about "spiritus lenis", but they > all refer, in various ways to "glottal stops". > > Because this is what that diacritic is meant to represent. > > > > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Michael Everson > wrote: > >> On 1 Jun 2017, at 14:37, St?phane polis wrote: >> > >> > Not sure that I get what you mean here, Michael. >> > >> > Could you be more explicit, What would be the problem with: LATIN >> CAPITAL LETTER I WITH GLOTTAL STOP? >> >> The diacritic is not a glottal stop. ????????? >> >> It?s a spiritus lenis. >> >> Michael >> _______________________________________________ >> Egyptian mailing list >> Egyptian at evertype.com >> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frederic.grosshans at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 16:09:02 2017 From: frederic.grosshans at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Fr=c3=a9d=c3=a9ric_Grosshans?=) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:09:02 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: Le 01/06/2017 ? 16:14, Marwan Kilani a ?crit : > I'm quite sure that the IPA glottal stop character does derive from > the Greek spiritus lenis, and the fact that it does not look the same > is merely an historical typographic distinction, and the fact that > Egyptological glottal stop often looks more like the greek spiritus > lenis, rather than the IPA glottal stop character is probably merely > due to the fact that Egyptology as a field was excluded (or did not > pay too attention) to the typographical developments taking place in > linguistics and standard phonetic transcriptions, rather than being > due to an explicit desire of Egyptologist of keeping their "glottal > stop" graphically closer to the Greek spiritus lenis, rather than to > the IPA glottal stop. > If you consider such ?historical typographical distinction[s]? irrelevant, you can use the existing U+0357 ?? COMBINING RIGHT HALF RING ABOVE (solution A2 in proposal n3487) or ? U+02C0 MODIFIER LETTER GLOTTAL STOP and this whole discussion is irrelevant. From serge.rosmorduc at lecnam.net Thu Jun 1 16:38:16 2017 From: serge.rosmorduc at lecnam.net (ROSMORDUC Serge) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:38:16 +0000 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: Hello all, I agree with Michael, the question of the name should not stop us here - as far as I am concerned, it could be called ? BLUE UNICORN ? (even if I would prefer a plain ? EGYPTOLOGICAL YOD ?, which has the advantage of covering all possible shapes used in the past, but has been rejected for lack of extensibility). Regarding names, our aleph is not really an aleph, so... The purpose of unicode is not to improve nor dictate how a scholarly community should transliterate texts. Egyptology has had a tendency to entrench itself in its own conventions, and improvements would welcome, but the goal here is to describe the current practices, not to propose new ones (I?m not saying it?s not legitimate, but it?s not the question here). Let?s all remember that the important thing is to have the character encoded - as a software writer, the bad support from some softwares of this sign as a composite sign have plagued me for years, and I am very happy to see it being done. I?m much more interested in having a good example of what it should look like for font designers to use, for the colleagues to be happy with what they get, than about the name we give it. Best regards, Serge From odusseus at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 16:43:06 2017 From: odusseus at gmail.com (Marwan Kilani) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:43:06 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: "If you consider such ?historical typographical distinction[s]? irrelevant, you can use the existing U+0357 ?? COMBINING RIGHT HALF RING ABOVE (solution A2 in proposal n3487) or ? U+02C0 MODIFIER LETTER GLOTTAL STOP and this whole discussion is irrelevant." 1a) no, because it does not represent a "half ring" (which has other linguistic meanings). It represent a glottal stop 1b) no, i cannot use ? U+02C0 because from a linguistic perspective, " i? "represent a *glottalised i*, not a character that seems to behave like a i or like a glottal stop depending on the context (which is what the egyptological character we are discussing means). To represent that, the glottal stop must be *above* the i, to indicate that the same phoneme can behave in both ways. 2) if you think that "historical typographical origins" are relevant, then we should name the character "A" as "Romanized Aliph", rather than "Latin A", because Latin A is nothing but a typographical development of Phoenician aliph, after all.. And in general, I still don't get what is the problem in having a "a/i/u with glottal stop above" / "a/i/u with superimposed glottal stop"? Michael, i do appreciate you effort in coding these things for 17 years, but i don't see why such a name, which is more appropriate and more accurate, should be a problem? And in general seriously, please, please: traditional Egyptological linguistic terminology is already too often so much backward for so many concepts, please let's not reinforce this by encoding into Unicode such characters with a 19th century term like "spiritus lenis", when we can use a much more appropriate "glottal stop".. Egyptology needs to be integrated into the general modern linguistic trends and terminology, it does not need to be stuck into an exceptionalism of 19th century terminology.. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Fr?d?ric Grosshans < frederic.grosshans at gmail.com> wrote: > Le 01/06/2017 ? 16:14, Marwan Kilani a ?crit : > >> I'm quite sure that the IPA glottal stop character does derive from the >> Greek spiritus lenis, and the fact that it does not look the same is merely >> an historical typographic distinction, and the fact that Egyptological >> glottal stop often looks more like the greek spiritus lenis, rather than >> the IPA glottal stop character is probably merely due to the fact that >> Egyptology as a field was excluded (or did not pay too attention) to the >> typographical developments taking place in linguistics and standard >> phonetic transcriptions, rather than being due to an explicit desire of >> Egyptologist of keeping their "glottal stop" graphically closer to the >> Greek spiritus lenis, rather than to the IPA glottal stop. >> >> If you consider such ?historical typographical distinction[s]? > irrelevant, you can use the existing U+0357 ?? COMBINING RIGHT HALF RING > ABOVE (solution A2 in proposal n3487) or ? U+02C0 MODIFIER LETTER GLOTTAL > STOP and this whole discussion is irrelevant. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Egyptian mailing list > Egyptian at evertype.com > http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From everson at evertype.com Thu Jun 1 17:22:16 2017 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:22:16 +0100 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: On 1 Jun 2017, at 15:43, Marwan Kilani wrote: > The diacritic does represent a superimposed glottal stop, while it does not represent (anymore) a spiritus lenis (which in today's technical terminology, which has changed since the time of Lepsius, is a diacritic of greek orthography, not of Egyptian transliteration orthography).. I don?t care what its phonetic value is. The shape of the diacritic is not the shape of a glottal stop ?. The origin and shape is that of the spiritus lenis. > That fact that in the fonts commonly used in egyptology it may look like a spiritus lenis is due to historical topographical reasons (which are not rules set in stone, and should not have the priority over an accurate linguistic description of the function of such diacritic), but it does not mean that it is a spiritus lenis. See Lepsius, who invented it. > Also because I think that the aim should be to encode the transliteration used by Egyptologists today as Egyptologists understand it today, not the transliteration used by Lepsius as Lepsius understood it more than a century ago. Well, you?re stuck with it. The name of the mark is spiritus lenis, and the reading rule for it in Egyptian and Ugaritic is probably /?a ?i ?u/. > And it is enough to have a look at recent publications such as Allen's "Middle Egyptian Grammar", Allen's "The Ancient Egyptian Language", Loprieno's "Ancient Egyptian - a linguistic introduction" or even something more popular such as Collier & Manley "How to read Egyptian Hieroglyphs" to realise that today *no one* of them talks about "spiritus lenis", but they all refer, in various ways to "glottal stops?. That?s the reading rule, not the identification of the character. > Because this is what that diacritic is meant to represent. The diacritic known as ?acute? may represent stress, or vowel quality, or vowel quantity. The diacritic known as ?cedilla? does not represent a small z except in shape. Michael From everson at evertype.com Thu Jun 1 17:32:48 2017 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:32:48 +0100 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: <53E494EE-C6EC-4F89-9951-B0D93AADA8B4@evertype.com> On 1 Jun 2017, at 15:57, Marwan Kilani wrote: > Also, it would be worth remembering that Egyptologists (and "Ugaritologists") use these characters to represent and express *linguistic* concepts, *not* typographical concepts. You use the letter ?w?, don?t you? You call it ?double u?, don?t you? You use the letters ? and ?, do you not? They are named H WITH DOT BELOW and H WITH BREVE BELOW, not PHARYNGEAL H and UVULAR H. > If we use in our transliterations the character "i + semicircular diacritic on top of it" it is to represent a *linguistic* concept, i.e. the fact that a given sign may linguistically behave both like a "i" and like a *glottal stop*. Writing systems are not languages. Writing systems are graphs on paper, wood, stone, metal, etc. In the UCS we often use descriptive names. Moreover, what is A WITH GLOTTAL STOP? It it a glottalized a? Is it /?a/? Is it /a?/? (Glottalized a is ?creaky voice? and is written /a?/.) > We don't use such character to indicate the typographical anecdote that in the 19th century people fancied using the spiritus lenis to represent the glottal stop. Get over it. > This is irrelevant, from and for an egyptological point of view. Really, you?re going to have to get over it. > therefore, that "semicircular diacritic on top of it" should be equated with what it represents, i.e. a glottal stop, and not with what it may looks like, i.e. a spiritus lenis. What does the letter ?c? represent? What do the acute, grave, circumflex, breve, inverted breve, and caron represent? > Because egyptologist use it (and will use the new character you want to encode in Unicode) because of what it linguistically represents, not because of what 19th century people fancied and not because of what it looks like in some fonts. If you want it to look good in fonts, then the origin of the diacritical mark should be known. You have not convinced me, and I have been naming UCS characters for two decades, and I know what I am talking about. Michael From everson at evertype.com Thu Jun 1 17:51:34 2017 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:51:34 +0100 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> Message-ID: <79DE59F4-3D66-46BD-91CE-8AF70741A018@evertype.com> On 1 Jun 2017, at 16:43, Marwan Kilani wrote: > > "If you consider such ?historical typographical distinction[s]? irrelevant, you can use the existing U+0357 ?? COMBINING RIGHT HALF RING ABOVE (solution A2 in proposal n3487) or ? U+02C0 MODIFIER LETTER GLOTTAL STOP and this whole discussion is irrelevant." > > 1a) no, because it does not represent a "half ring" (which has other linguistic meanings). It represent a glottal stop What does the letter ?c? represent? I know it to represent all of these: /d? ? k s ? ts ts? t? ? ? ? ?/ You are confusing writing system (graphs) with speech (sounds). > 1b) no, i cannot use ? U+02C0 because from a linguistic perspective, " i? "represent a *glottalised i*, No, i? represents i followed by a glottal stop. Glottalization is a different process. > not a character that seems to behave like a i or like a glottal stop depending on the context (which is what the egyptological character we are discussing means). To represent that, the glottal stop must be *above* the i, to indicate that the same phoneme can behave in both ways. Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they?re yours. > 2) if you think that "historical typographical origins" are relevant, then we should name the character "A" as "Romanized Aliph", rather than "Latin A", because Latin A is nothing but a typographical development of Phoenician aliph, after all. Sigh. > And in general, I still don't get what is the problem in having a "a/i/u with glottal stop above" / "a/i/u with superimposed glottal stop?? The mark isn?t a glottal stop. Glottal stops look like this: ????. We do not have a combining glottal stop mark in the UCS. > Michael, i do appreciate you effort in coding these things for 17 years, but i don't see why such a name, which is more appropriate and more accurate, should be a problem? Because the name we have chosen is more accurate and more useful, and because the name you prefer (A WITH GLOTTAL STOP) is ambiguous anyway, as I have said (?a, a?). > And in general seriously, please, please: traditional Egyptological linguistic terminology is already too often so much backward for so many concepts, please let's not reinforce this by encoding into Unicode such characters with a 19th century term like "spiritus lenis", when we can use a much more appropriate "glottal stop?. The behaviour of this diacritic is EXACTLY THE SAME as that in Greek, where it sits *atop* a lowercase letter and stands *before* an uppercase letter. So the proper identification of this mark as spiritus lenis is not only historically accurate, but essential for correct rendering. > Egyptology needs to be integrated into the general modern linguistic trends and terminology, it does not need to be stuck into an exceptionalism of 19th century terminology. You are mistaken. I appreciate your ideology, but it?s not appropriate here. Michael. From odusseus at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 18:07:17 2017 From: odusseus at gmail.com (Marwan Kilani) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 19:07:17 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: <53E494EE-C6EC-4F89-9951-B0D93AADA8B4@evertype.com> References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> <53E494EE-C6EC-4F89-9951-B0D93AADA8B4@evertype.com> Message-ID: "Well, you?re stuck with it. The name of the mark is spiritus lenis, and the reading rule for it in Egyptian and Ugaritic is probably /?a ?i ?u/." No it is not. In egyptological transcriptions it indicates a sign that can be EITHER a i OR a glottal stop, while in Ugaritic it depends on the context: in some context it indicate a vowel followed by a glottal stop, in other a glottal stop followed by a vowel - and this is what it is represented as a vowel with a glottal stop above it. Seriously: you clearly do not know what these characters are meant to represent (and i wonder how you can assume you know how to encode something you don't understand why has that specific shape in the first place - we are not talking about since that have randomly evolved for centuries as all the other examples you mention, we are talking about specific characters that have been developed by scholars and that have that specific shape because of what they want to represent), i was saying, you clearly do not know exactly what these characters are meant to represent, you ask what we egyptologists think about your suggestion, we (not only me, three egyptologists so far) say that no, we don't think "spiritus lenis" should be in the name, we offer an alternative which a) you have not yet validly dismissed (why the name "glottal stop *above* i/a/u" should not work? leaving aside the fact you want it to be a spiritus lenis) and b) which has much more general than your suggestion, and has much more potential to be useful as a unicode character even outside egyptian and ugaritic, because it is hard that a linguist will need a "vowel + spiritus lenis" because the "spiritus lenis" is mainly a 19th century concept (except in greek, obviously), but there could be various contexts, for various languages, in which a linguist could make use of a "letter x with superimposed glottal stop". For intende to transcribe ambiguous forms, in which the glottal stop may occur both before and after the main letter/phoneme. But still, no. Because you want ti to be a spiritus lenis. And you have encoded names for to decades. And you know what you are talking about. Great arguments. Good like with you next 17 years of attempts. P.S. "Because the name we have chosen is more accurate and more useful, and because the name you prefer (A WITH GLOTTAL STOP) is ambiguous anyway," I suggested a second version: "A WITH GLOTTAL STOP ABOVE IT" (or something like that) which is not ambiguous, i think? --- "Moreover, what is A WITH GLOTTAL STOP? It it a glottalized a? Is it /?a/? Is it /a?/?" "No, i? represents i followed by a glottal stop. Glottalization is a different process." If this is what you are talking about, then no: you clearly don't know that you are talking about. /i?/ represents a i followed by a glottal stop. /i?/ represent a glottalised i which in some languages can be realised as "creaky voice" and can be transcribed *also* as /i?/ I quote: "Glottalization varies along three parameters, all of which are continuums. The *degree* of glottalization varies from none (modal voice , [d]) through stiff voice ([d?]) and creaky voice ([d?]) to full glottal closure (glottal reinforcement or glottal replacement, described below). The *timing* also varies, from a simultaneous single segment [d?] to an onset or coda such as [?d] or [d?] to a sequence such as [?d] or [d?]. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottalization#Types Perhaps if you were listening to people who actually know what they are talking about, you wouldn't have been spending 17 years trying to encode these things.. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Michael Everson wrote: > On 1 Jun 2017, at 15:57, Marwan Kilani wrote: > > > Also, it would be worth remembering that Egyptologists (and > "Ugaritologists") use these characters to represent and express > *linguistic* concepts, *not* typographical concepts. > > You use the letter ?w?, don?t you? You call it ?double u?, don?t you? You > use the letters ? and ?, do you not? They are named H WITH DOT BELOW and H > WITH BREVE BELOW, not PHARYNGEAL H and UVULAR H. > > > If we use in our transliterations the character "i + semicircular > diacritic on top of it" it is to represent a *linguistic* concept, i.e. the > fact that a given sign may linguistically behave both like a "i" and like a > *glottal stop*. > > Writing systems are not languages. Writing systems are graphs on paper, > wood, stone, metal, etc. In the UCS we often use descriptive names. > > Moreover, what is A WITH GLOTTAL STOP? It it a glottalized a? Is it /?a/? > Is it /a?/? > > (Glottalized a is ?creaky voice? and is written /a?/.) > > > We don't use such character to indicate the typographical anecdote that > in the 19th century people fancied using the spiritus lenis to represent > the glottal stop. > > Get over it. > > > This is irrelevant, from and for an egyptological point of view. > > Really, you?re going to have to get over it. > > > therefore, that "semicircular diacritic on top of it" should be equated > with what it represents, i.e. a glottal stop, and not with what it may > looks like, i.e. a spiritus lenis. > > What does the letter ?c? represent? What do the acute, grave, circumflex, > breve, inverted breve, and caron represent? > > > Because egyptologist use it (and will use the new character you want to > encode in Unicode) because of what it linguistically represents, not > because of what 19th century people fancied and not because of what it > looks like in some fonts. > > If you want it to look good in fonts, then the origin of the diacritical > mark should be known. > > You have not convinced me, and I have been naming UCS characters for two > decades, and I know what I am talking about. > > Michael > _______________________________________________ > Egyptian mailing list > Egyptian at evertype.com > http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From odusseus at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 19:03:53 2017 From: odusseus at gmail.com (Marwan Kilani) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 20:03:53 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> <53E494EE-C6EC-4F89-9951-B0D93AADA8B4@evertype.com> Message-ID: "I don?t care what its phonetic value is. The shape of the diacritic is not the shape of a glottal stop ?. The origin and shape is that of the spiritus lenis." And still: Unicode U 13A0, ? , it looks like a D, its shape and origin is that of a D. And still in Unicode it is labelled "CHEROKEE LETTER A" because its phonetic value in cherokee (the source of such character) is *A*, not D, and it does not matter it looks and derive from a D. Unicode U13AA, ? , it looks like a A, its shape and origin is that of a A. And still, in Unicode it is labelled "CHEROKEE LETTER GO" Unicode U13DF, ? , it looks like a C, its shape and origin is that of a C. And still, in Unicode it is labelled "CHEROKEE LETTER TLI" And so on, and so on, and so on.. Or also: Unicode U30D2, ? , it looks like the Chinese radical ?, its shape and origin is that of a ?. And still, in Unicode it is labelled "KATAKANA LETTER HI", because this is the *phonetic value* that such sign has in Japanese. And same with lots of other katakana, such as ?, ?, ?,... And let's not talk about characters in devanagari-derived scripts.. So since in Unicode there are already characters that are indeed labeled on the basis of their phonetic value in the writing system using them, in spite of the fact that their shape and origin is the same of other characters, then why shouldn't be possible to called the egyptological yod "i with glottal stop atop" (or similar) since this is what that character represent, *in spite* of the fact that the diacritic originates form a spiritus lenis? Why? If this is possible for Cherokee, Japanese and various indian characters, why shouldn't it be possible for an egyptological character? On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Marwan Kilani wrote: > "Well, you?re stuck with it. The name of the mark is spiritus lenis, and > the reading rule for it in Egyptian and Ugaritic is probably /?a ?i ?u/." > > No it is not. > In egyptological transcriptions it indicates a sign that can be EITHER a i > OR a glottal stop, while in Ugaritic it depends on the context: in some > context it indicate a vowel followed by a glottal stop, in other a glottal > stop followed by a vowel - and this is what it is represented as a vowel > with a glottal stop above it. > > Seriously: you clearly do not know what these characters are meant to > represent (and i wonder how you can assume you know how to encode something > you don't understand why has that specific shape in the first place - we > are not talking about since that have randomly evolved for centuries as all > the other examples you mention, we are talking about specific characters > that have been developed by scholars and that have that specific shape > because of what they want to represent), i was saying, you clearly do not > know exactly what these characters are meant to represent, you ask what > we egyptologists think about your suggestion, we (not only me, three > egyptologists so far) say that no, we don't think "spiritus lenis" should > be in the name, we offer an alternative which > a) you have not yet validly dismissed (why the name "glottal stop *above* > i/a/u" should not work? leaving aside the fact you want it to be a spiritus > lenis) > and > b) which has much more general than your suggestion, and has much more > potential to be useful as a unicode character even outside egyptian and > ugaritic, because it is hard that a linguist will need a "vowel + spiritus > lenis" because the "spiritus lenis" is mainly a 19th century concept > (except in greek, obviously), but there could be various contexts, for > various languages, in which a linguist could make use of a "letter x with > superimposed glottal stop". For intende to transcribe ambiguous forms, in > which the glottal stop may occur both before and after the main > letter/phoneme. > > > But still, no. > Because you want ti to be a spiritus lenis. And you have encoded names for > to decades. And you know what you are talking about. > Great arguments. > > Good like with you next 17 years of attempts. > > > P.S. > > "Because the name we have chosen is more accurate and more useful, and > because the name you prefer (A WITH GLOTTAL STOP) is ambiguous anyway," > > I suggested a second version: "A WITH GLOTTAL STOP ABOVE IT" (or something > like that) which is not ambiguous, i think? > > --- > > "Moreover, what is A WITH GLOTTAL STOP? It it a glottalized a? Is it > /?a/? Is it /a?/?" > > "No, i? represents i followed by a glottal stop. Glottalization is a > different process." > > If this is what you are talking about, then no: you clearly don't know > that you are talking about. > > /i?/ represents a i followed by a glottal stop. /i?/ represent > a glottalised i which in some languages can be realised as "creaky voice" > and can be transcribed *also* as /i?/ > I quote: > > "Glottalization varies along three parameters, all of which are > continuums. The *degree* of glottalization varies from none (modal voice > , [d]) through stiff voice > ([d?]) and creaky voice > ([d?]) to full glottal > closure (glottal reinforcement or glottal replacement, described below). > The *timing* also varies, from a simultaneous single segment [d?] to an > onset or coda such as [?d] or [d?] to a sequence such as [?d] or [d?]. " > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottalization#Types > > Perhaps if you were listening to people who actually know what they are > talking about, you wouldn't have been spending 17 years trying to encode > these things.. > > > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Michael Everson > wrote: > >> On 1 Jun 2017, at 15:57, Marwan Kilani wrote: >> >> > Also, it would be worth remembering that Egyptologists (and >> "Ugaritologists") use these characters to represent and express >> *linguistic* concepts, *not* typographical concepts. >> >> You use the letter ?w?, don?t you? You call it ?double u?, don?t you? You >> use the letters ? and ?, do you not? They are named H WITH DOT BELOW and H >> WITH BREVE BELOW, not PHARYNGEAL H and UVULAR H. >> >> > If we use in our transliterations the character "i + semicircular >> diacritic on top of it" it is to represent a *linguistic* concept, i.e. the >> fact that a given sign may linguistically behave both like a "i" and like a >> *glottal stop*. >> >> Writing systems are not languages. Writing systems are graphs on paper, >> wood, stone, metal, etc. In the UCS we often use descriptive names. >> >> Moreover, what is A WITH GLOTTAL STOP? It it a glottalized a? Is it /?a/? >> Is it /a?/? >> >> (Glottalized a is ?creaky voice? and is written /a?/.) >> >> > We don't use such character to indicate the typographical anecdote that >> in the 19th century people fancied using the spiritus lenis to represent >> the glottal stop. >> >> Get over it. >> >> > This is irrelevant, from and for an egyptological point of view. >> >> Really, you?re going to have to get over it. >> >> > therefore, that "semicircular diacritic on top of it" should be equated >> with what it represents, i.e. a glottal stop, and not with what it may >> looks like, i.e. a spiritus lenis. >> >> What does the letter ?c? represent? What do the acute, grave, circumflex, >> breve, inverted breve, and caron represent? >> >> > Because egyptologist use it (and will use the new character you want to >> encode in Unicode) because of what it linguistically represents, not >> because of what 19th century people fancied and not because of what it >> looks like in some fonts. >> >> If you want it to look good in fonts, then the origin of the diacritical >> mark should be known. >> >> You have not convinced me, and I have been naming UCS characters for two >> decades, and I know what I am talking about. >> >> Michael >> _______________________________________________ >> Egyptian mailing list >> Egyptian at evertype.com >> http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From everson at evertype.com Thu Jun 1 19:24:35 2017 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 19:24:35 +0100 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> <53E494EE-C6EC-4F89-9951-B0D93AADA8B4@evertype.com> Message-ID: <88F471C3-A470-4525-A1B0-FB2F13491FCE@evertype.com> On 1 Jun 2017, at 18:07, Marwan Kilani wrote: > > "Well, you?re stuck with it. The name of the mark is spiritus lenis, and the reading rule for it in Egyptian and Ugaritic is probably /?a ?i ?u/." > > No it is not. The name of the mark is the name of the mark. We use it in scholarship because Lepsius took it and put it there. > In egyptological transcriptions it indicates What it indicates is not what it *is*. That?s a reading rule. > a sign that can be EITHER a i OR a glottal stop, while in Ugaritic it depends on the context: in some context it indicate a vowel followed by a glottal stop, in other a glottal stop followed by a vowel - and this is what it is represented as a vowel with a glottal stop above it. The glyph of the diacritical mark comes before capital A I U. Just like the spiritus lenis does in Greek. The glyph is not a glottal stop glyph. A glottal stop sound may be represented with many different glyphs. A sound is not a glyph. A glyph is not a sound. > Seriously: you clearly do not know what these characters are meant to represent What is the letter ?c? supposed to represent? I gave you already a list. Here it is again: /d? ? k s ? ts ts? t? ? ? ? ?/ > (and i wonder how you can assume you know how to encode something you don't understand I don?t have to understand ANYTHING about Egyptian or Ugaritic phonology in order to analyse the glyphs of a diacritical mark and to identify the placement it has when used with capital and small base letters. > why has that specific shape in the first place - we are not talking about since that have randomly evolved for centuries as all the other examples you mention, Sorry, what? I mentioned c (and its uses) and w (and its name) and ? and ? (and their names) > we are talking about specific characters that have been developed by scholars The use of the spiritus lenis was developed by Lepsius 154 years ago (his Standard Alphabet was published in 1863). Interestingly, one difference that can be observed about scholars of that era and this, is that they all had training in Latin and Greek. > and that have that specific shape because of what they want to represent), i was saying, you clearly do not know exactly what these characters are meant to represent, What they are meant to represent is some sounds. What they *are* is some shapes. The name of the shape of ???? is ?glottal stop?. The name of the shape of the mark used with six new characters is ?spiritus lenis? as described by the person who put that mark into use. Celebrate the history of your discipline! Rejoice in the 150-year life of this diacritical mark! > you ask what we egyptologists think about your suggestion, we (not only me, three egyptologists so far) say that no, we don't think "spiritus lenis" should be in the name, Daniel, Nigel, and St?phane were talking about the two characters used in Egyptology only. I pointed out that there are four other characters used in Ugaritic studies which use the same mark. So we could not name those EGYTOLOLOGICAL ALEF (already taken, and not used in Egyptology) and EGYTOLOLOGICAL WAW (not used in Egyptology), so the name EGYPTOLOGICAL YOD cannot be used. > we offer an alternative which > a) you have not yet validly dismissed (why the name "glottal stop above i/a/u" should not work? leaving aside the fact you want it to be a spiritus lenis) We have existing naming conventions (and you cannot argue with them; they are the naming conventions). LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP ABOVE I does not conform to those conventions. LATIN LETTER I WITH GLOTTAL STOP also does not conform to them: it is a descriptive name like LATIN LETTER I WITH DIAERESIS, but the name GLOTTAL STOP in such a name would refer to something which has the shape of ????, which the diacritical mark used in Egyptology and Ugaritic studies does not. In fact, we know the actual origin of the diacritical mark used in Egyptology and Ugaritic studies. It is the spiritus lenis. In the UCS, the origin of a character often distinguishes it from another character. 20 years ago I showed that Middle English yogh ? and the phonetic character ezh ? had different origins despite a superficial resemblance. The glyphs for glottal stop aren?t the same as those used in Egyptology and Ugaritic studies. So we wouldn?t use the word GLOTTAL STOP in a character name for this particular diacritic. Moreover, as I have said, we know the origin of the diacirtic. It?s Greek. It?s the spiritus lenis. Being used to indicate /?/. And it behaves just like the Greek diacritic does where capital letters are concerned. So according to our naming conventions, the right name to use is LATIN LETTER I WITH SPIRITUS LENIS. I suppose we could also call it LATIN LETTER I WITH PSILI, but that would not, I think, be better. > and > b) which has much more general than your suggestion, and has much more potential to be useful as a unicode character even outside egyptian and ugaritic, because it is hard that a linguist will need a "vowel + spiritus lenis" because the "spiritus lenis" is mainly a 19th century concept (except in greek, obviously), but there could be various contexts, for various languages, in which a linguist could make use of a "letter x with superimposed glottal stop". For intende to transcribe ambiguous forms, in which the glottal stop may occur both before and after the main letter/phoneme. We do not wish to encode a combining diacritical mark for this because its behaviour (vis ? vis capital letters) is complicated (Greek fonts have precomposed versions which help font developers) and therefore we decided to encode all six letters uniquely. You have forgotten, it seems, that your linguist who used something like x? would have to have it come out as ?X in upper-case. > But still, no. > Because you want it to be a spiritus lenis. Because it is, in origin, demonstrably, a spiritus lenis. It is clear from its behaviour and its name that it was borrowed directly from Greek. Its shape informs EGYPTOLOGICAL ALEF ?? and EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN ??. This is not in doubt. > And you have encoded names for to decades. And you know what you are talking about. > Great arguments. They?re true. You?re arguing on the basis of a failure to distinguish glyphs from sounds. > Good like with you next 17 years of attempts. Thank you. I?m sorry I can?t accommodate your ideological concerns about character names and Egyptology. I recommend that you revel in the history of your discipline, but if you think it?s better, you can hold out and complain for the rest of your career that these letters are mis-named. > "Because the name we have chosen is more accurate and more useful, and because the name you prefer (A WITH GLOTTAL STOP) is ambiguous anyway," > > I suggested a second version: "A WITH GLOTTAL STOP ABOVE IT" (or something like that) which is not ambiguous, i think? It does not conform to our naming conventions. As I said, that is a description of the glyphs, and you can?t use GLOTTAL STOP as a name for the glyph used in Egyptology and Ugaritic studies because the glyph is different from ????. > "Moreover, what is A WITH GLOTTAL STOP? It it a glottalized a? Is it /?a/? Is it /a?/?" > > "No, i? represents i followed by a glottal stop. Glottalization is a different process." > > If this is what you are talking about, then no: you clearly don't know that you are talking about. > > /i?/ represents a i followed by a glottal stop. /i?/ represent a glottalised i which in some languages can be realised as "creaky voice" and can be transcribed *also* as /i?/ I?m sorry to disagree with you, but in Seneca orthography, U+02C0 ? is used as a stop (consonant), not as a mark of creakily voiced vowel. > I quote: > > "Glottalization varies along three parameters, all of which are continuums. The degree of glottalization varies from none (modal voice, [d]) through stiff voice ([d?]) and creaky voice ([d?]) to full glottal closure (glottal reinforcement or glottal replacement, described below). The timing also varies, from a simultaneous single segment [d?] to an onset or coda such as [?d] or [d?] to a sequence such as [?d] or [d?]. " > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottalization#Types > > Perhaps if you were listening to people who actually know what they are talking about, you wouldn't have been spending 17 years trying to encode these things. Heh. In 2008 Bob and I tried to get decisions from the UTC. The UTC was unable to make one, and this had nothing to do with the character names. But go ahead. Be angry. On 1 Jun 2017, at 19:03, Marwan Kilani wrote: > "I don?t care what its phonetic value is. The shape of the diacritic is not the shape of a glottal stop ?. The origin and shape is that of the spiritus lenis." > > And still: > > Unicode U 13A0, ? , it looks like a D, its shape and origin is that of a D. And still in Unicode it is labelled "CHEROKEE LETTER A" > because its phonetic value in cherokee (the source of such character) is A, not D, and it does not matter it looks and derive from a D. > > Unicode U13AA, ? , it looks like a A, its shape and origin is that of a A. And still, in Unicode it is labelled "CHEROKEE LETTER GO" > > Unicode U13DF, ? , it looks like a C, its shape and origin is that of a C. And still, in Unicode it is labelled "CHEROKEE LETTER TLI" > > And so on, and so on, and so on.. The original Cherokee syllabary did not use Latin letterforms; that was devised as Cherokee went to type. Please see Cherokee A, GO, and TLI at http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/cherokee_orig.gif In any case, we distinguish look-alike letters from script to script, and these letters are simply Latin letters with diacritical marks. > Or also: > > Unicode U30D2, ? , it looks like the Chinese radical ?, its shape and origin is that of a ?. And still, in Unicode it is labelled "KATAKANA LETTER HI", because this is the *phonetic value* that such sign has in Japanese. > > And same with lots of other katakana, such as ?, ?, ?,... > > And let's not talk about characters in devanagari-derived scripts.. We do not unify between scripts. So you?re arguing on the basis of Not Understanding How the UCS Works. > So since in Unicode there are already characters that are indeed labeled on the basis of their phonetic value in the writing system using them, in spite of the fact that their shape and origin is the same of other characters, then why shouldn't be possible to called the egyptological yod "i with glottal stop atop" (or similar) since this is what that character represent, *in spite* of the fact that the diacritic originates form a spiritus lenis? > Why? Because (1) the shape of a glyph for GLOTTAL STOP ABOVE would have to be ? and (2) it?s only ?above? the lower-case letters. > If this is possible for Cherokee, Japanese and various indian characters, why shouldn't it be possible for an egyptological character? I have explained this mistake above. Michael From odusseus at gmail.com Thu Jun 1 19:44:52 2017 From: odusseus at gmail.com (Marwan Kilani) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 20:44:52 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: <88F471C3-A470-4525-A1B0-FB2F13491FCE@evertype.com> References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> <53E494EE-C6EC-4F89-9951-B0D93AADA8B4@evertype.com> <88F471C3-A470-4525-A1B0-FB2F13491FCE@evertype.com> Message-ID: "We do not unify between scripts. So you?re arguing on the basis of Not Understanding How the UCS Works." Exactly. This is exactly my point. then why do you want to unify between Greek and Egyptian transliteration? The spiritus lenis is a *greek* character, which was adapted for egyptological transcription to transcribe a phoneme glottal stop. Exactly like the radical ? , which is a chinese character, which was adapted for japanese transcriptions to a phonemic sequence "hi", written with the kana ?. Exactly the same situation, as you can see from the same sentence. Therefore, since the katakana graph ?, which derives from chinese ? but represent "hi" is labelled "KATAKANA LETTER HI", then the egyptological diacritic we are talking about, which derives from greek spiritus lenis but represent "glottal stop" (and can be represented without problems with the grapheme "glottal stop" should be labelled... On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Michael Everson wrote: > On 1 Jun 2017, at 18:07, Marwan Kilani wrote: > > > > "Well, you?re stuck with it. The name of the mark is spiritus lenis, and > the reading rule for it in Egyptian and Ugaritic is probably /?a ?i ?u/." > > > > No it is not. > > The name of the mark is the name of the mark. We use it in scholarship > because Lepsius took it and put it there. > > > In egyptological transcriptions it indicates > > What it indicates is not what it *is*. That?s a reading rule. > > > a sign that can be EITHER a i OR a glottal stop, while in Ugaritic it > depends on the context: in some context it indicate a vowel followed by a > glottal stop, in other a glottal stop followed by a vowel - and this is > what it is represented as a vowel with a glottal stop above it. > > The glyph of the diacritical mark comes before capital A I U. Just like > the spiritus lenis does in Greek. The glyph is not a glottal stop glyph. A > glottal stop sound may be represented with many different glyphs. > > A sound is not a glyph. A glyph is not a sound. > > > Seriously: you clearly do not know what these characters are meant to > represent > > What is the letter ?c? supposed to represent? I gave you already a list. > Here it is again: /d? ? k s ? ts ts? t? ? ? ? ?/ > > > (and i wonder how you can assume you know how to encode something you > don't understand > > I don?t have to understand ANYTHING about Egyptian or Ugaritic phonology > in order to analyse the glyphs of a diacritical mark and to identify the > placement it has when used with capital and small base letters. > > > why has that specific shape in the first place - we are not talking > about since that have randomly evolved for centuries as all the other > examples you mention, > > Sorry, what? I mentioned c (and its uses) and w (and its name) and ? and ? > (and their names) > > > we are talking about specific characters that have been developed by > scholars > > The use of the spiritus lenis was developed by Lepsius 154 years ago (his > Standard Alphabet was published in 1863). Interestingly, one difference > that can be observed about scholars of that era and this, is that they all > had training in Latin and Greek. > > > and that have that specific shape because of what they want to > represent), i was saying, you clearly do not know exactly what these > characters are meant to represent, > > What they are meant to represent is some sounds. What they *are* is some > shapes. The name of the shape of ???? is ?glottal stop?. The name of the > shape of the mark used with six new characters is ?spiritus lenis? as > described by the person who put that mark into use. > > Celebrate the history of your discipline! Rejoice in the 150-year life of > this diacritical mark! > > > you ask what we egyptologists think about your suggestion, we (not only > me, three egyptologists so far) say that no, we don't think "spiritus > lenis" should be in the name, > > Daniel, Nigel, and St?phane were talking about the two characters used in > Egyptology only. I pointed out that there are four other characters used in > Ugaritic studies which use the same mark. So we could not name those > EGYTOLOLOGICAL ALEF (already taken, and not used in Egyptology) and > EGYTOLOLOGICAL WAW (not used in Egyptology), so the name EGYPTOLOGICAL YOD > cannot be used. > > > we offer an alternative which > > a) you have not yet validly dismissed (why the name "glottal stop above > i/a/u" should not work? leaving aside the fact you want it to be a spiritus > lenis) > > We have existing naming conventions (and you cannot argue with them; they > are the naming conventions). LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP ABOVE I does not > conform to those conventions. LATIN LETTER I WITH GLOTTAL STOP also does > not conform to them: it is a descriptive name like LATIN LETTER I WITH > DIAERESIS, but the name GLOTTAL STOP in such a name would refer to > something which has the shape of ????, which the diacritical mark used in > Egyptology and Ugaritic studies does not. In fact, we know the actual > origin of the diacritical mark used in Egyptology and Ugaritic studies. It > is the spiritus lenis. > > In the UCS, the origin of a character often distinguishes it from another > character. 20 years ago I showed that Middle English yogh ? and the > phonetic character ezh ? had different origins despite a superficial > resemblance. > > The glyphs for glottal stop aren?t the same as those used in Egyptology > and Ugaritic studies. So we wouldn?t use the word GLOTTAL STOP in a > character name for this particular diacritic. > > Moreover, as I have said, we know the origin of the diacirtic. It?s Greek. > It?s the spiritus lenis. Being used to indicate /?/. And it behaves just > like the Greek diacritic does where capital letters are concerned. > > So according to our naming conventions, the right name to use is LATIN > LETTER I WITH SPIRITUS LENIS. I suppose we could also call it LATIN LETTER > I WITH PSILI, but that would not, I think, be better. > > > and > > b) which has much more general than your suggestion, and has much more > potential to be useful as a unicode character even outside egyptian and > ugaritic, because it is hard that a linguist will need a "vowel + spiritus > lenis" because the "spiritus lenis" is mainly a 19th century concept > (except in greek, obviously), but there could be various contexts, for > various languages, in which a linguist could make use of a "letter x with > superimposed glottal stop". For intende to transcribe ambiguous forms, in > which the glottal stop may occur both before and after the main > letter/phoneme. > > We do not wish to encode a combining diacritical mark for this because its > behaviour (vis ? vis capital letters) is complicated (Greek fonts have > precomposed versions which help font developers) and therefore we decided > to encode all six letters uniquely. > > You have forgotten, it seems, that your linguist who used something like > x? would have to have it come out as ?X in upper-case. > > > But still, no. > > Because you want it to be a spiritus lenis. > > Because it is, in origin, demonstrably, a spiritus lenis. It is clear from > its behaviour and its name that it was borrowed directly from Greek. Its > shape informs EGYPTOLOGICAL ALEF ?? and EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN ??. This is not > in doubt. > > > And you have encoded names for to decades. And you know what you are > talking about. > > Great arguments. > > They?re true. You?re arguing on the basis of a failure to distinguish > glyphs from sounds. > > > Good like with you next 17 years of attempts. > > Thank you. I?m sorry I can?t accommodate your ideological concerns about > character names and Egyptology. I recommend that you revel in the history > of your discipline, but if you think it?s better, you can hold out and > complain for the rest of your career that these letters are mis-named. > > > "Because the name we have chosen is more accurate and more useful, and > because the name you prefer (A WITH GLOTTAL STOP) is ambiguous anyway," > > > > I suggested a second version: "A WITH GLOTTAL STOP ABOVE IT" (or > something like that) which is not ambiguous, i think? > > It does not conform to our naming conventions. As I said, that is a > description of the glyphs, and you can?t use GLOTTAL STOP as a name for the > glyph used in Egyptology and Ugaritic studies because the glyph is > different from ????. > > > "Moreover, what is A WITH GLOTTAL STOP? It it a glottalized a? Is it > /?a/? Is it /a?/?" > > > > "No, i? represents i followed by a glottal stop. Glottalization is a > different process." > > > > If this is what you are talking about, then no: you clearly don't know > that you are talking about. > > > > /i?/ represents a i followed by a glottal stop. /i?/ represent a > glottalised i which in some languages can be realised as "creaky voice" and > can be transcribed *also* as /i?/ > > I?m sorry to disagree with you, but in Seneca orthography, U+02C0 ? is > used as a stop (consonant), not as a mark of creakily voiced vowel. > > > I quote: > > > > "Glottalization varies along three parameters, all of which are > continuums. The degree of glottalization varies from none (modal voice, > [d]) through stiff voice ([d?]) and creaky voice ([d?]) to full glottal > closure (glottal reinforcement or glottal replacement, described below). > The timing also varies, from a simultaneous single segment [d?] to an onset > or coda such as [?d] or [d?] to a sequence such as [?d] or [d?]. " > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottalization#Types > > > > Perhaps if you were listening to people who actually know what they are > talking about, you wouldn't have been spending 17 years trying to encode > these things. > > Heh. > > In 2008 Bob and I tried to get decisions from the UTC. The UTC was unable > to make one, and this had nothing to do with the character names. > > But go ahead. Be angry. > > On 1 Jun 2017, at 19:03, Marwan Kilani wrote: > > > "I don?t care what its phonetic value is. The shape of the diacritic is > not the shape of a glottal stop ?. The origin and shape is that of the > spiritus lenis." > > > > And still: > > > > Unicode U 13A0, ? , it looks like a D, its shape and origin is that of a > D. And still in Unicode it is labelled "CHEROKEE LETTER A" > > because its phonetic value in cherokee (the source of such character) is > A, not D, and it does not matter it looks and derive from a D. > > > > Unicode U13AA, ? , it looks like a A, its shape and origin is that of a > A. And still, in Unicode it is labelled "CHEROKEE LETTER GO" > > > > Unicode U13DF, ? , it looks like a C, its shape and origin is that of a > C. And still, in Unicode it is labelled "CHEROKEE LETTER TLI" > > > > And so on, and so on, and so on.. > > The original Cherokee syllabary did not use Latin letterforms; that was > devised as Cherokee went to type. Please see Cherokee A, GO, and TLI at > http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/cherokee_orig.gif > > In any case, we distinguish look-alike letters from script to script, and > these letters are simply Latin letters with diacritical marks. > > > Or also: > > > > Unicode U30D2, ? , it looks like the Chinese radical ?, its shape and > origin is that of a ?. And still, in Unicode it is labelled "KATAKANA > LETTER HI", because this is the *phonetic value* that such sign has in > Japanese. > > > > And same with lots of other katakana, such as ?, ?, ?,... > > > > And let's not talk about characters in devanagari-derived scripts.. > > We do not unify between scripts. So you?re arguing on the basis of Not > Understanding How the UCS Works. > > > So since in Unicode there are already characters that are indeed labeled > on the basis of their phonetic value in the writing system using them, in > spite of the fact that their shape and origin is the same of other > characters, then why shouldn't be possible to called the egyptological yod > "i with glottal stop atop" (or similar) since this is what that character > represent, *in spite* of the fact that the diacritic originates form a > spiritus lenis? > > Why? > > Because (1) the shape of a glyph for GLOTTAL STOP ABOVE would have to be ? > and (2) it?s only ?above? the lower-case letters. > > > If this is possible for Cherokee, Japanese and various indian > characters, why shouldn't it be possible for an egyptological character? > > I have explained this mistake above. > > Michael > _______________________________________________ > Egyptian mailing list > Egyptian at evertype.com > http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From everson at evertype.com Thu Jun 1 22:25:40 2017 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 22:25:40 +0100 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> <53E494EE-C6EC-4F89-9951-B0D93AADA8B4@evertype.com> <88F471C3-A470-4525-A1B0-FB2F13491FCE@evertype.com> Message-ID: <4D597983-22D2-42F6-BA08-E79212FAF55A@evertype.com> On 1 Jun 2017, at 19:44, Marwan Kilani wrote: > > "We do not unify between scripts. So you?re arguing on the basis of Not Understanding How the UCS Works." > > Exactly. This is exactly my point. Your point is that you are arguing on the basis of NOT understanding how the Universal Character Set works. Well, learn to understand it, then. > then why do you want to unify between Greek and Egyptian transliteration? > The spiritus lenis is a *greek* character, which was adapted for egyptological transcription to transcribe a phoneme glottal stop. The spiritus lenis *was* a Greek character. So are the letters ????????? are all Greek letters, too, and behold, in the last two centuries they were borrowed into Latin as ?????????. That?s called ?disunification?. > Exactly like the radical ? , which is a chinese character, which was adapted for japanese transcriptions to a phonemic sequence "hi", written with the kana ?. > > Exactly the same situation, as you can see from the same sentence. Nope. It?s called ?disunification?. For functional grounds (like sorting) as well as design grounds (in the case of Japanese, as well as Latin IPA characters). > Therefore, Your logic is faulty. > since the katakana graph ?, which derives from chinese ? but represent "hi" is labelled "KATAKANA LETTER HI", then the egyptological diacritic we are talking about, which derives from greek spiritus lenis but represent "glottal stop" (and can be represented without problems with the grapheme "glottal stop" should be labelled? Either SPIRITUS LENIS or PSILI. Disunification happens to work somewhat differently for many combining marks. which have a ?common? script property, but since for these six new characters we are explicitly NOT encoding them with combining marks arguing about that is pointless. Even though Greek breathings were introduced in the 23rd century BCE by Aristophanes of Byzantium, to indicate the presence or absence of /h/, what happened 150 years ago is that Lepsius *disunified* the marks from Greek to use them in Latin. Their essential shape, however, he did not change. They were, and are, separate things from the later-invented glottal stop ? (which in the IPA seems to have had its origin in filing off the dot on a ?). Glottal stop as a letter is ?. Glottal stop as a sound is /?/. Egyptologists and Ugaritic scholars transcribe some Egyptian and Ugaritic letters using the spiritus lenis, which sits atop lowercase letters and precede uppercase letters. The sounds these represent are evidently reconstructed as /?a ?i ?u/. Glyphs are not sounds. The name for these must be, for historical reasons, and in support of their glyph behaviour, LATIN LETTER WITH SPIRITUS LENIS. Michael From michel at suignard.com Thu Jun 1 23:46:06 2017 From: michel at suignard.com (Michel Suignard) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 22:46:06 +0000 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: <4D597983-22D2-42F6-BA08-E79212FAF55A@evertype.com> References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> <5A2B6388-A431-4086-8EE8-53AF743D6099@gmail.com> <011D2E52-DFE0-46D8-BB05-A8D66C925449@evertype.com> <53E494EE-C6EC-4F89-9951-B0D93AADA8B4@evertype.com> <88F471C3-A470-4525-A1B0-FB2F13491FCE@evertype.com> <4D597983-22D2-42F6-BA08-E79212FAF55A@evertype.com> Message-ID: Like Michael said, we should all rejoice that we finally have a pre-composed character for the Egyptian Yod and move on. I was happy to be part of the process to get this done. I badly needed it for my own work on the Ptolemaic extension. Nothing like an urgent need to get a solution. And I was able to benefit from the preparation work done by Bob and Michael. Michel From daniel.werning at topoi.org Sat Jun 3 20:31:11 2017 From: daniel.werning at topoi.org (Daniel Werning) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 21:31:11 +0200 Subject: [Egyptian] Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents about Egyptian Hieroglyphic (May 2017) In-Reply-To: <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> References: <9563bf62-94e1-6587-08a8-6fff635b3d52@topoi.org> <4F342780-92C3-4CC0-807E-9D3583636E7D@ulg.ac.be> Message-ID: <50809e40-0335-3862-0853-31ee71d2c93c@topoi.org> Dear all Egyptological yod interested ones, I have gone through the "lively" discussion, which revealed some interesting historical information (Lepsius,...) -- thank you Michael. However, the thread started with the question whether Egyptologists would be happy with the proposal, in order to prevent any disturbances for the process. And, if I followed the discussion correctly, some encoding oriented people were happy with it while three or four Egyptologists said they are not. So that's at least the answer to the initial question. Consequently, it would be fair (indeed I ask you) *not name Egyptology as a supporter*. Since there is already resistance against it now the chances are high that if you want to go through with the "... WITH SPIRITUS LENIS" characters as they are now, Egyptologists *would not start using* it (indeed I -- as a print publishing author -- would stick to U+0131+0357 since the shape is better). Then the whole point of the well-meant endeavor is lost. *Encoders*, if it was just for the easy encoding one could simply use ? U+1EC9 LATIN ... LETTER WITH HOOK ABOVE It looks vaguely like Egyptological Yod -- indeed like an "i" with a glottal stop ;) -- and it is not composed. The main point for a long-term acceptance in Egyptology is that the character shape *looks like the character in contemporary Egyptology*. Indeed, the "half circle" above the Egyptological yod does NOT look like the "spiritus lenis" the latest proposal. The "spiritus lenis" is designed like a RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK (bubblish at the top), while the Egyptological form is more like a mirrored "c", like the Egyptological alef (*no bubble* at the top, sometimes styled a little thicker but not bubblish). http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~dwernin/temp/EgyptologicalYod.pdf Both shapes are admittedly similar -- and may have originally started as one(?) --, but SIMILAR, today, is not enough to get it accepted in the field FOR which it is meant (right?). If it was the shape of the contemporary Egyptological Yod but a misleading or historically outdated name ("spiritus lenis") -- probably o.k. If it was a non-perfect shape but a unique name "EGYPTOLOGICAL YOD" - probably o.k. But only similar shape (RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK-ish) and misleading/outdated name (spiritus lenis) -- no broad acceptance to be expected. If you are willing to design the shape in a revision of the proposal less RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK-like and more mirrored-"c" like (like the upper part of the EGYPTOLOGICAL ALEF), I personally would not bother too much with the name "... WITH SPIRITUS LENIS" iff(!) Ugaritic studies would prefer it over "... WITH GLOTTAL STOP" (I would refer "... WITH GLOTTAL STOP" or actually "... WITH ALEF"). (Question is whether Ugaritic studies could live with the Egyptological shape.) Note, BTW, that the COPTIC COMBINING SPIRITUS LENIS looks completely different -- the argument that one could not call it "... WITH GLOTTAL STOP" because the linguistic "GLOTTAL STOP" looks different is, therefore, not striking, I believe. What about "I/A/U WITH SEMITIC(!) GLOTTAL STOP" or "I/A/U WITH ALEF"? (depending on what Ugaritic studies could better live with) -- But again: first of all, *the shape must appear correct to contemporary Egyptologists* to make it a success. All the best, Daniel https://www.archaeologie.hu-berlin.de/de/assoziiert/daniel_werning Am 01.06.2017 um 08:44 schrieb St?phane polis: > Hi guys, > > I definitely agree with Daniel. > Best wishes, > > 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 31 mai 2017 ? 21:04, Daniel Werning a ?crit : >> >> Dear Bob, >> (Dear Michel Suignard,) >> >> Actually, I like the earlier proposal L2/17-076 for an "LATIN ... LETTER EGYPTOLOGICAL YOD" much more. >> >> The new proposal L2/17-076R2 calls the "half circle" above the "i" a "... WITH SPIRITUS LENIS" and the shape of the half circle looks more like a "quotes" sign -- like there is a dot in the upper part (future encoders will certainly design it that way due to the name "... WITH SPIRITUS LENIS"). But this is not how it is supposed to look like. It is supposed to look like half an "EGYPTOLOGICAL ALIF". Compare >> http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~dwernin/temp/EgyptologicalYod.pdf (with scan from Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, and others). >> >> Therefore, I take issue with the new proposal as far as it aims at Egyptological encoding (*wrong shape, misleading name*). >> >> Greetings, >> Daniel (Werning) >> https://www.archaeologie.hu-berlin.de/de/assoziiert/daniel_werning >> >> Am 31.05.2017 um 19:27 schrieb Bob Richmond: >>> Hi All >>> I posted a note on recent documents (and developments) on Unicode and hieroglyphic on http://hieroglyphseverywhere.blogspot.co.uk/. >>> I expect there will be plenty to discuss in weeks and months to come. >>> Hopefully the Yod issue is settled once and for all but if anyone has a problem with the two characters proposed please speak up now so we don?t waste a year or two as happened with hieroglyph format controls. >>> Bob >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Egyptian mailing list > Egyptian at evertype.com > http://evertype.com/mailman/listinfo/egyptian_evertype.com >