Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:35:21 +0000 From: "Mark-Jan Nederhof" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL annotated sign list (was: JSesh version 2.8.1) On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Serge Rosmorduc < serge.rosmorduc@qenherkhopeshef.org> wrote: > For one thing, my initial purpose to find a unique >> description for each sign seemed rather hard to achieve; e.g. I14 and I15 >> now >> both: 'snake', and F46 through F49 all: 'intestine'. >> >> >> > It's really difficult to do, especially if you consider the extended list. > F46 to F49's case is not complex in theory, but is hard to describe in > words . It is difficult but not impossible. One could e.g. describe F47 as "intestine, starting in upper-left corner". Of course, the question is if we should go through this fuss. I still think we (or someone) should. There are a number of reasons why descriptions of signs in the narrow sense are important, and why uniqueness would be a desirable property: 1) In the class room it is easier to refer to signs if everyone agrees what they depict. People would refer to E29 as "gazelle" (or less commonly "dorcas gazelle"), rather as E29 or as "some mammal with curved horns", because there is agreement on this sign. Other signs however are referred to by different descriptions, sometimes with mutually exclusive meanings according to outdated interpretations, and this creates confusion. 2) Thinking in terms of descriptions of the visual appearance of signs may circumvent the distinction between glyph and character, which I think is an unsolvable problem, as the glyph/character dichotomy isn't easily applicable to hieroglyphic writing. 3) I think one of the most important reasons is that at present font designers are faced with the impossible task of deciding what is essential and what is not. Returning to signs F46 to F49, suppose a font designer wants to draw F46 like F48, who is to say this is wrong? After all, the two signs mean the same thing and both depict "intestine". There is something deeply unsatisfactory about defining a list of what some like to call "characters" on the basis of mere glyphs. For another example, how on earth should a font designer decide how to draw weird signs such as A65 or D65 if from the appearance in the Unicode proposal there is no clue what is being depicted? Font designers should have the freedom to make the signs more uniform and better according to aesthetic principles, but how far can they stray from e.g. the glyphs in the Unicode proposal? There is now a totally insane situation that if someone rips the glyphs from the PDF of the Unicode proposal and turns them into a font, they are violating legal restrictions (as far as I understand, if not, please correct me on this). On the other hand, if they draw the glyphs anew, they risk that any differences with the Unicode proposal makes the new glyphs 'wrong'. 4) Closely related to 2) and 3), having mandatory descriptions in any sign list should place a burden on those who extend the sign list with new signs to explain what in their opinion the distinguishing element is that separates the signs from existing signs. For example, I've seen some types of dancing men in some extended signs lists. In the ideal case, someone may want to add, say, a dancing man with raised left leg and both arms extended because it is conjectured that this signifies a particular kind of dance, and this conjecture can be included in the description of the new sign. Alternatively, the sign may not have a different meaning from other signs depicting dancing men, but Egyptologists may still find it important to distinguish the signs. In this case, the information "use of this sign is just as sign ..." would be very helpful. Descriptions of signs may be tentative and errors may be made to be corrected later, but having no descriptions at all for some signs creates an unworkable situation for many of us. For point 3) see also Serge's comment: However, when one goes beyon the original list, where Gardiner gives at > least a short description, > there is a real lack of actual description of the sign. It's very difficult > to know what is relevant and what is not. > If you explore the signs available on JSesh's site, you will find many > variants of Manuel de Codage signs, often built from genuine glyphs. > I had sometimes a hard time selecting the sign to use for the "official" > code, because of this lack of published documentation. > To be fair, publishing it is a huge and complex task, which requires > considerable expertise... > > To give an example of the difficulties, the original sign for E35 (a > sitting baboon) in JSesh had an upward tail, which is also the case > of the sign in Gardiner's extended font. The sign itself was taken from NK > royal tombs (but I think the model was not a hieroglyph, but a large-scale > figure). > Now, when I talked about JSesh with specialists in Ptolemaic, they told me > that it wasn't the correct shape. Now, is it the case that > a) we should have two sitting baboon, one for Ptolemaic texts, and one for > older texts ? > b) Gardiner font-drawers also used a New Kingdom large scale figure instead > of an actual glyph ? > To find it out requires a small search, and so on. Incidentally, in the Unicode proposal (and in Gardiner's supplements), E35 is a hare on standard and land with irrigation runnels. The sitting baboon is E36, which has its tail upward by the way. About the tail, I see the problem that descriptions of signs will never capture all the details that font designers might get wrong. But I wonder whether the mentioned Ptolemaic specialists are not demanding too much if they expect that every glyph in a font looks exactly like the glyphs from their manuscripts. Encoding hieroglyphic texts may be a little like transcribing hieratic into hieroglyphs. One has to accept a change in appearance, which is the price one pays for many benefits that follow from the standardised representation, such as the ability to search for patterns of signs, and a uniform and clearer appearance if one looks at several manuscripts combined (cf. example sentences in grammar books). > The fact is that there is no full commented catalogue with signs values > yet, ... which has been my complaint about the Unicode proposal. Everson and Richmond have done a wonderful job in making up for the utter failure of the Egyptological community to come to a standardized sign list (as a kind of version 0.001 to be extended with lots more later). But the meaning of the signs is in limbo until someone creates such a catalogue. > For Ptolemaic signs, there are two articles by Fairman. One is available on > the BIFAO site; http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bifao/43/ > The other is Fairman, H.W., =84Notes on the Alphabetic Signs Employed in the > Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of. the Temple of Edfu", ASAE 43 > > There is the Montpellier's list (Valeurs phon=E9tiques des signes > hi=E9roglyphiques d'=E9poque Gr=E9co-Romaine), but it's basically a list of signs > values with bibliographic references, but without commentaries, so it's more > a starting point than a complete encyclopedia of signs. There are also a > number of works on particular monuments, like S. Cauville's > "Dendara, le fond hi=E9roglyphique =E0 l'=E9poque de Cl=E9op=E2tre". > > Things are however on the move, with the ongoing publication of the > Pal=E9ographie Hi=E9roglyphique by the IFAO. Volume 1 by D. Meeks contains an > long introduction, presenting the problems and issues linked with the > subject. > There are a number of recent works on determinative, in particular O. > Goldwasser, "From Icon to Metaphor"; > OBO 142. > I know that Pr. Kammerzell's team is also working on determinatives and > their uses. > There's an article by Kammerzell in the beginning of Hannig GHWB with a > somehow formal presentation, > esp. table 3. Thank you, Serge, for the further references. I will look them up. The paper by Kammerzell in GHWB is interesting, but it falls back on the traditional division of signs into phonograms, ideograms and determinatives, whereas the sign list in the same volume has a finer distinction into more categories, which furthermore remain unexplained. My question as professional computer scientist but relative amateur in the field of Egyptology is whether we should wait and see when this work by professional Egyptologists will be completed, and more importantly whether this will give us what we need, or whether we should go ahead anyway and try to get something done on a short term ourselves. As both JSesh and my own software rely on some types of annotation of signs, I would be in favour of moving ahead, and create something that is usable, albeit imperfect. I've had a look at the annotated list in JSesh (thanks Serge!). There are some differences between the objectives there and my own initial objectives: 1) JSesh incorporates extended lists, whereas I'm not interested in any signs beyond the 1071 from the Unicode proposal. 2) As Serge explained, one of the purposes in JSesh is to help finding signs, by establishing relations between signs, and dividing signs into categories. Although I think that is very useful for hieroglyphic editors, my emphasis would be on offering information on individual signs that should help the user decide whether to use certain signs in certain situation and how signs should be interpreted. 3) There is some information such as ' use="keyboard" ' which seems to be application-specific. I would opt to exclude these kinds of information, or at least keep them separate. I would be in favour of combining efforts and benefit from anyone on the AEL list who would like to contribute any work. Much of that work may not require too much expert knowledge, but be a matter of collating different sources, and may be an instructive experience. The ultimate format may not be one XML file, but two or more, as we may e.g. want to keep application-specific information separate from application-independent. The editing may be done on the basis of a graphical interface, such as the one that Serge has already built. Perhaps Serge has further technical suggestions. But I hope that some of the more fundamental questions mentioned earlier can be cleared up before we embark on this. > There is also not a general agreement. For instance, when I presented my > automated transliteration system, where I used the Phono-Det category, > pr. Vernus told me that those were in fact ideograms, and indeed the rule= s > I had written for both were quite similar. That's interesting. Did Vernus explain why Phono-Det signs are in fact ideograms? My understanding would be that ideograms are quite different things from phonetic determinatives. I would say the two classes of signs fulfil a different role in the writing of words, but I must admit I don't know any clear-cut rules to decide the difference. It is exactly these questions which I would like to see clarified. Thanks to those who already replied to this thread (also off-list). I hope this very important issue may attract more attention. Regards, Mark-Jan ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:57:07 +0000 From: "Mark-Jan Nederhof" To: "Ancient Egyptian Language List" Subject: Re: AEL annotated sign list (was: JSesh version 2.8.1) > To give an example of the difficulties, the original sign for E35 (a >> sitting baboon) in JSesh had an upward tail, which is also the case >> of the sign in Gardiner's extended font. [...] >> > > Incidentally, in the Unicode proposal (and in Gardiner's supplements), E35 > is a hare on standard > and land with irrigation runnels. The sitting baboon is E36, which has its > tail upward by the way. > Correction. The hare on standard and land is E35 in a Gardiner supplement, but _not_ in the Unicode proposal, where it is NU15, just as in another Gardiner supplement. The name E35 is unused in the Unicode proposal. Sorry to have added more confusion to existing confusion. Mark-Jan ============================================================================== Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:45:49 -0600 From: Robert Myers To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL Looking for sources on Dunanwy Hi; I think I saw a ritual akin to the Opening of the Mouth, but it involved Horus, Set, and Thoth; and it seemed to plug dwn-anwy in as a fourth, to bring the number of consecrations up to a proper four. Horus and Set are called the brother gods, but also Horus and Thoth. So, there may be a detectable intention there, somewhere. Bob ============================================================================== Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:28:30 +0100 From: Serge Rosmorduc To: Ancient Egyptian Language List Subject: Re: AEL annotated sign list (was: JSesh version 2.8.1) Mark-Jan Nederhof a écrit : > > Correction. The hare on standard and land is E35 in a Gardiner supplement, but _not_ > in the Unicode proposal, where it is NU15, just as in another Gardiner supplement. > The name E35 is unused in the Unicode proposal. > For reasons which escapes me, a number of the signs proposed in the supplement to the catalogue of the Egyptian hieroglyphic printing type have been given slightly different codes in the Manuel de Codage. In the Manuel de codage, page 105 (and later in the hieroglyphica) the baboon is coded E35. As the late period texts (and in particular Ptolemaic signs) have largely been published using this system, I would tend to favour it over others (even if normally tend to refer to Gardiner for the signs shape). In the Manuel, E36 is a baboon holding an udjat eye. Incidentally, the entry on this sign in Meek's "les architraves d'Esna" states that the tail shape in Gardiner fonts indeed corresponds to early examples of the sign, whereas a downward tail is the rule in the Late Period and Ptolemaic era. Best regards, S. Rosmorduc ============================================================================== From: "A.P. de Visser" To: Subject: AEL Dunanwy Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:10:03 +0100 Dear members Katherine asked information about this deity.I found the following data: He is a falcon-god of purification,represented vigilant from a stick,already appearing in predynastic High-Egypt.His name means.There are a few hieroglyphic possibilities to write his name(citing from Hannig): D46,E34,D36,W24,G43,H5(2x) D46,M42,D36,W24,G43,G7 D46,V4,D36,G43,W24,G7 Kind regards Bram de Visser, Holland ==============================================================================