From: Dean Snyder (dean.snyder@jhu.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 17 2003 - 12:20:19 EST
[I am sending this email to both the Initiative for Cuneiform Encoding
email list, cuneiform@unicode.org, and the general Unicode email list,
unicode@unicode.org, in order to get comments from both the cuneiform and
Unicode communities.]
From the very first Initiative for Cuneiform Encoding conference at Johns
Hopkins University in November 2000, I, along with all others I am aware
of, have accepted unquestioningly the suggestion that we encode the
complex Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform signs as separate code points in Unicode.
For the non-cuneiformists on these lists, one way cuneiformists
categorize cuneiform signs is as simple, compound, and complex signs - a
simple sign being one not formed by combining two or more signs, a
compound sign being one formed by postfixing one or more signs to form a
grapheme cluster; and a complex sign being one formed by infixing one
sign inside another to form a new sign. At both ICE conferences we
decided to encode simple and complex signs but not compound signs.
Recently I have had second thoughts about encoding complex signs.
Modification of base, or simple, signs was a productive process for
making new signs in the earlier periods of cuneiform usage, and included
such modifications as adding or subtracting wedges, rotating signs,
infixing signs, etc. (For some examples of how the ancient scribes
modified base signs to form new complex signs see <http://www.jhu.edu/
ice/basesigns/>.)
Instead of encoding all 875 post-archaic, base and complex cuneiform
signs, we could instead encode the 280 base signs plus a dozen or so sign
modifiers. (I am not including in these approximate figures the 75 or so
numerical signs being proposed for encoding.) This would be somewhat
analogous to encoding "a", "e", the acute accent, and the grave accent
instead of encoding "a with acute", "a with grave", "e with acute", etc.
Encoding base signs with modifiers would more closely mirror, in the
encoding, the way the script system itself actually worked and it would
more easily accommodate modern research in archaic cuneiform, a stage in
cuneiform script development we have all decided not to encode for now
due to the current provisional state of its scholarship. By providing in
the encoding the base signs along with their modifiers cuneiformists
working in archaic and other periods could generate newly discovered or
newly analyzed complex signs ad hoc, without having to go through the
time-consuming and expensive Unicode/ISO standardization process.
Compound and complex sign realization would then simply be a matter of
the coordination of input methods with fonts, something now doable by end
users with modern computer operating systems. (This, of course, assumes
that we are more likely to find new combinations and modifications of
existing base signs than to find new base signs themselves. At any rate,
when we do find new base signs we need to encode them anyway.)
To most cuneiformists, of course, the encoding underpinnings would all be
hidden by input methods and fonts. One would simply type the expected
SHUD3 and the input method would map it to 3 code points, KA INFIX and
SHU (mouth sign with hand sign infixed), and the font would render it as
one complex sign (meaning "to pray").
And from a practical point of view encoding only the base signs and their
modifiers would be easy for us to do - we need only remove the complex
signs from our lists and add the 13 or 14 modifiers.
Respectfully,
Dean A. Snyder
Scholarly Technology Specialist
Library Digital Programs, Sheridan Libraries
Garrett Room, MSE Library, 3400 N. Charles St.
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
office: 410 516-6850 fax: 410-516-6229
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project: www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 17 2003 - 13:15:03 EST