Re: Character codes for Egyptian transliteration

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Fri Aug 29 2003 - 18:55:20 EDT

  • Next message: Jungshik Shin: "RE: UTS #10 : comment on Hangul Jamo(Letter) collation"

    At 14:33 -0700 2003-08-29, Peter Kirk wrote:

    >>Well, *I* gave it its name. And as to the glyph, having an original
    >>model in something does not mean that an entity has not budded off
    >>into its own letterness. ;-)
    >My point is that you didn't call it ayin. Neither did the ancient
    >Egyptians as this is a Semitic word, meaning "eye". Modern scholars
    >gave it that name because its sound is the same as the Semitic ayin

    Gardiner, Loprieno, and others call it ayin. I never said anything
    about ancient Egyptians. They didn't use the Latin script. These are
    Egyptological characters used by Egyptologists. I formalized the name

    >And they gave it basically the same shape. It may have gone its own
    >way since, but I'm not entirely convinced.

    It isn't basically the same shape. Ayin is usually written with a
    6-shaped apostrophe. If this were based on one of the apostrophes, it
    would be a reversed 9-shaped apostrophe.

    >OK. But I'll use the same argument for Hebrew. BHS is essential in
    >study of biblical Hebrew, and so plain-text representation of BHS is
    >essential. Even including the raised letters, perhaps?

    I never said anything against raised Hebrew letters. I just helped to
    encoded a rake of superscript Latin letters for Uralicists.

    >>It is not identical to either. I do not want to add a combining
    >>Egyptological ring-thingy to Unicode. It is not a productive mark.
    >>A capital and small letter i with a deformed dot is what's needed,
    >>that's all.
    >I thought it was policy never to add new precomposed characters,
    >however unproductive the combining marks are. Well, that was
    >certainly the argument for encoding in Hebrew right holam rather
    >than precomposed holam male. Though we more or less agreed not to do

    The policy is not to add a new character for which its base and its
    combining mark are already there; that is, not to add a letter which
    already exists because it can be made from things which are existing.
    I propose a letter i with a special diacritic, but I do not propose
    to encode the special diacritic separately, since it is not
    productive. So I do not propose any decomposition for the character.
    And I do not believe that the EGYPTOLOGICAL YOD can be encoded with
    combining characters already in the standard.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 29 2003 - 20:06:27 EDT