From: Raymond Mercier (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 25 2006 - 16:03:49 CDT
S. Rosmorduc writes,
>If one wants to encode the translitteration of demotic, the problem is not
I see that, and it seems only to involve characters available in the various
extended Latin blocks. However this was not what interested me, but rather
the encoding of the script itself.
>Now, encoding the demotic script itself is a completely different thing.
>The number of glyphs in demotic is lower than in hieroglyphs (but far
>exceed 45, which only corresponds to the "alphabetic" signs), but, as far
>as I know, there is still a lack for a reasonably complete paleography and
>catalog of sign (plus one has also to account for diacronic variations) .
My superficial interest began only with some astronomical materials
(including the Stobart tablets) and it appeared to me, wrongly I suppose,
that even here it was a matter of the alphabet/syllabary, such as
Spiegelberg gives. He says nothing about further signs, which I suppose
includes determinatives, etc., as in the earlier script.
Thanks for your report of the state of the subject.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 25 2006 - 16:07:41 CDT