From: Dean Snyder (email@example.com)
Date: Mon May 23 2005 - 18:29:16 CDT
Tom Emerson wrote at 6:05 PM on Monday, May 23, 2005:
>Dean Snyder writes:
>> You can when they're rendered; and I have been talking all along about
>> loss of GLYPHIC correspondences in transliterations.
>Who says that glyphic correspondence is a requirement for
Nobody I know, certainly not I.
In fact, that's why I said that transliteration is almost tautologically
a loss of glyphic information.
Both you and Gregg are completely missing my point. The whole purpose of
transliteration is to render characters of one script in another, which
almost by definition, or tautologically, means that there is a loss of
glyphic information when one transliterates. In fact, that is arguably
the main reason one transliterates - to substitute the glyphic
information in the source script with different glyphic information in
the destination script. I gave several examples where glyphic
information, in ancient texts, for example, is important information
that is not conveyed when those texts are transliterated. Hence the
utility of encoding those scripts.
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
Computer Science Department
Whiting School of Engineering
218C New Engineering Building
3400 North Charles Street
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
office: 410 516-6850
cell: 717 817-4897
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 23 2005 - 19:16:16 CDT