![]() ![]() ![]() In particular So is familiar with Japanese, Chinese and Korean, I think? While I know pretty well Arabic-based scripts, Indian ones (I lived in Nepal and when I was there I ended up teaching Nepali to Nepali children in a Nepali school) and I have played a lot with Chinese and Japanese scripts. I put myself as well among those blind men.īut considering that, correct me if I am wrong, So and I (note that I am talking only in my name, not in So's name) are the only person at that workshop who:Ī) are Egyptologists and therefore know both how Egyptian hieroglyphs works and what Egyptologists need (or at least what we need as egyptlogists)ī) have been playing since a while with Unicode characters, fonts, input methods etc and therefore have a certain understanding of how these technical tools workĬ) have a good practical understanding of how non-Latin complex horizontal/vertical scripts work. I don’t think I have a vision of the whole picture and I don’t think to be more knowledgeable than any of you. The three blind men start touching the elephant and start to try to describe it and to try to figure out what kind of animal is, but they end up fighting because they can only touch a small part of the animal but missed the general picture.īesides the “entrenched positions” mentioned by Nigel, I had the feeling that some of the participants in Cambridge were a bit like the blind men, knowing very well their specific fields, but missing a bit the general picture, thus ending up misunderstanding the others. Which, in turn, led me to a few observations.ĭo you know the Indian story of the three (or more) blind men who are put in front of an elephant and are asked to find out what hey have in front of them ( )? One in front of the trump, one next to the ear and one near the tail. I have the feeling that many of you will not like what I am going to write, but well.įirst of all, as you know I didn’t know any of you before Cambridge, so I had the feeling to be a bit an “external observer”. I dare to write here an email pointing out a few general and specific observations on both what has been said in Cambridge, and what has been discussed in these emails in the past few days. If you don’t see any image in the text below or something does not make sense, please refer to the pdf. TYPE YOUR NAME IN JSESH PDFSubject: Some general considerationsįirst of all: I am attaching a pdf version of this email because I am using a few images, and I am not sure they will displayed in the right places in the email. Have you tried experimenting with font I sent out in the week (this has a couple of vertical/tall group examples in the doc about the font?įrom: Egyptian On Behalf Of Marwan Kilani On vertical and horizontal have you looked at the 3 controls + 2 group controls (as per note yesterday). I’ve not had time yet to analyse the Ramses data fully and have not yet received corresponding TLA data but on evidence so far the 4 corner method is only possibly needed for at most something like 1 in 5,000 clusters so this low frequency should be taken into account when we decide what to do. ![]() The simplicity of a single LIGATURE was proposed with consideration about input methods and the practicality/usability of editing in general purpose software. And remember the most popular input method is copy and paste! TYPE YOUR NAME IN JSESH SOFTWAREThe need to input joiner characters was a tradeoff – however specialist software for Egyptologists will be able to use specialist input methods for fast input of text. ![]() Some explicit structure seemed essential. If the look of a text were reliant on a particular fonts clustering model there are opportunities for confusion long term. One reason the explicit approach was actually chosen is it enables the author of a transcription to be clear about intended layout. Like you I like the Simplified approach and it would work well for much casual use. An example of an explicit approach (much like what we have now as the UTC recommendation). I first raised this “Simplified Egyptian” notion at I&E 2006 when we were discussing the initial repertoire.Ģ. An implied clustering scheme (similar to what you are suggesting in your note). When I kicked the ball rolling on the topic 18 months ago I submitted a rough background note to UTC L2/15-069. I’m sympathetic to much of what you have written. Next message (by thread): Some general considerations.Previous message (by thread): Some general considerations.Some general considerations Bob Richmond bobqq at .uk ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |