Re: Multiple Directions (was: Re: Coptic/Greek (Re: Phoenician))

From: Andrew C. West (
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 05:57:38 CDT

  • Next message: Dean Snyder: "RE: interleaved ordering (was RE: Phoenician)"

    On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:09:19 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
    > At 02:40 -0700 2004-05-14, Andrew C. West wrote:
    > >(not that Ogham's strictly BTT, but it is largely BTT in monumental
    > >inscriptions
    > I think it is always BTT in the inscriptions.

    My understanding is that when written along the arris of a "memorial stone", the
    inscription goes up one arris, and then either continues from the bottom of
    another arris going upwards again, or continues directly down another arris so
    that it follows an inverted V or U line; so technically inscriptional Ogham
    would be either BTT or vertical boustrophedon. But, on the other hand, Pictish
    Ogham inscriptions on flat slabs are largely adirectional.

    > >-- although for convenience it is almost always written LTR on paper
    > >and on screen ... and even in the Unicode code charts)
    > As it has been for centuries.

    Which is eminently sensible.

    I see no reason to mimic the original vertical orientation of Ogham inscriptions
    in text. If I did want to reproduce the exact textual layout of an Ogham
    inscription I would opt for a photograph or drawing of the inscription rather
    than try to format the text into twisted lines.

    Nevertheless, if a Mongolian script expert were to write a book on Ogham in
    Mongolian, he would probably embed Ogham text vertically within the vertical
    Mongolian text of the book. In which case, would he write the Ogham text TTB
    following Mongolian directionality, or BTT following inscriptional
    directionality ?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 14 2004 - 05:58:48 CDT