A technical note by Serge Rosmorduc About JSesh 6 sign placement is now available on the JSesh website via jsesh.qenherkhopeshef.org/en/node/3112. The document sketches some aspects of how JSesh organises hieroglyphs into clusters/quadrats for rendering. Some JSesh users may find this informative.
The note does not discuss when to use special features for sign placement so I'll give some practical guidance here.
In common with other first generation hieroglyphic editing software, the primary purpose of JSesh is to generate images of hieroglyphic text, typically for inclusion in word processing documents as illustrations. The JSesh sign placement extensions over basic MdC (Manuel de Codage) focus on this application. It is possible to get away with an inelegant or incorrect transcription so long as the image looks ok although hacking solutions can prove to be fools gold so avoid where at all possible.
A secondary, and increasingly useful, application is to use JSesh to encode hieroglyphic data in an MdC (Manuel de Codage) style format intended for processing in other software applications such as databases and other MdC-like editors. Here, elements of JSesh sign placement may be unsupported, irrelevant, or misleading. Incorrect or inefficient transcriptions are unacceptable.
This means the golden rule is to keep a JSesh encoding as simple as possible and only use the more complex features when essential.
For instance ntt is normally written MdC n:t*t. However technically it could be written in JSesh as n:(t*t) or n{{0,10,110}}**t{{0,800,98}}**t{{600,800,99}} even though these alternative forms make no apparent sense and should be avoided.
In order of complexity (least first) you should try to transcribe a quadrat using:
1. Regular '*' and ':' operators (preferred option).
2. Ligature system (if regular quadrat doesn't work)
3. Absolute positioning (only if all else fails, e.g. ligature doesn't work).
In some cases you may find a need for brackets. This is ok but keep usage to the minimum of what is essential.
When it seems absolute positioning is essential for a JSesh transcription, you may want to consider inserting MdC comments at the the top of the JSesh data file. For instance:
++JSESH6: anx\R30{{0,357,51}}**G5{{194,0,97}} is used because anx\R30^^^G5 renders the ankh too small.+s
++JSESH6: R7{{0,612,55}}**bA{{101,0,98}}**Z1{{953,69,79}} is used because R7^^^bA&&&Z1 default scaling of R7 is unsatisfactory (although R7\50^^^bA&&&Z1 is not bad). Note in some MdC systems R7&bA&Z1 looks fine.+s
I personally use this commenting approach with JSesh data so I know what to do if improvements appear in a later release of JSesh or I want to create generic MdC or Unicode data.
One pernicious use of absolute positioning I've observed is 'new signs from old'. For instance combine A50 ('noble') with S45 ('flagellum') instead of using the preformed A51 sign. Always use a preformed sign when available in the Hieroglyphica/JSesh set.
The current MdC analysis for Unicode Repertoire Extensions web app is not designed to process absolute positioning but provides an easy way to highlight absolutes and ligatures used in MdC-coded data. I find it useful to help spot JSesh transcription errors.
A related topic is conversion between Unicode and JSesh data. The most important consideration related to this process is that new Unicode fonts define sign placement in the font itself (allowing the user to work in many generic applications from Word Processors to Web Browsers). Each font can take its own approach to sign placement. A topic I hope to return to fairly soon.
Bob Richmond
Monday 30 January 2017
Wednesday 25 January 2017
150 Years of Hieroglyphic in Type: Anniversary of the first typeset Egyptian dictionary
2017 marks the 150th anniversary of the first printing of a typeset dictionary and grammar of Egyptian Hieroglyphic, written by Samuel Birch (at the time employed by the British Museum as head of the Egyptian and Assyrian Department).
The dictionary and grammar took the form of several hundred pages of extensive additions by Birch to Volume V of the (1867) English translation Egypt's place in Universal History of Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte (1845-) by C. C. J. Baron Bunsen. Birch and Bunson collaborated ten years earlier on additions to the English edition of Volume I (translated by Charles Cotterel; Longmans, 1848) notably concerning the writing system (including Appendix II - a hieroglyphic sign list).
About the typesetting process, Birch writes in his preface to Volume V:
The hieroglyphic used in this volume has been cast by Mr. Branston from designs drawn by Mr. Joseph Bonomi. It is the sole hieroglyphical fount in this country, and its importance can only be sufficiently appreciated from the consideration that Messrs. Longman have fulfilled, at a heavy cost, a task only undertaken abroad by foreign governments.
The advantage of this type to the present volume cannot be too highly appreciated, as it has rendered it practicable to print the Egyptian Dictionary, the Grammar, and the Chrestomathy in a form which renders the study of the hieroglyphs accessible both to the student and general enquirer. The Dictionary is the only one hitherto printed in this country, nor has any hieroglyphical dictionary appeared elsewhere, except that of Champollion, published in 1841, which contained only a few of the principal words. Its phonetic arrangement will, it is hoped, render it particularly easy of consultation. It has been a great labour to compile and print it, and the execution of it has been a task of many years.
A feature of the Bonomi typeface is the use of mostly solid filled in hieroglyphs. There is no attempt to detail most signs as is popular practice for the majority of hieroglyphic fonts later and nowadays.
Hieroglyphic typesetting was new technology in the mid-Nineteenth century and many later publications followed, using a variety of fonts, The Lepsius/Theinhardt font is probably the best known from that era.
Modern digital hieroglyphic, both the first generation MdC approach and the new Unicode/Opentype based systems, have characteristics that can be traced back though the early works by Birch and Lepsius. The corpus of 150 years of hieroglyphic content in type has proved very useful in devising new techniques and designing new fonts.
Some developments don't happen overnight. The goal to make hieroglyphic available to the student and general enquirer expressed by Birch has advanced gradually over 150 years with many modern publications available fairly inexpensively in print. Yet in terms of the potential of modern technology, there is much more to be done.
Sadly, the Birch publication never made it to the best seller lists of the day.
E. A. Budge dedicated his Dictionary of Hieroglyphs (1920) to the memory of Samuel Birch (whose Ancient Egyptian courses he attended and later worked with for a couple of years at the British Museum). In the introduction to his dictionary, Budge writes:
... it is quite impossible to hide the fact that the inclusion of Birch's Egyptian Dictionary in the fifth volume of the English translation was a great misfortune for the Dictionary itself and for the beginner in Egyptology for whom the work was primarily intended. There was an interval of seven years between the publication of the fourth and fifth volumes of the English translation of Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte, arid there seems to be no doubt that public interest in Bunsen's scheme of chronology drooped when its author died in 1860, the year which saw the appearance of the fourth volume, and was practically dead when the fifth volume was published in 1867. According to Birch, the volume fell " flat," and its editor and publishers were greatly disappointed. Whether the edition was a small one or not I have no evidence to show, but it was certainly the fact that for some reason or other copies of the volume were difficult to get in the early "seventies." It was said at the time that the publishers, being dissatisfied with the sales, had "disposed" of the sheets of a large number of copies The natural result was that when people found out that the volume contained Birch's Dictionary and Grammar and Chrestomathy the copies that found their way into the market fetched relatively very high prices, or at all events prices which effectively placed the book beyond the reach of the ordinary student. When I attended Birch's Egyptian classes in 1875-76 and needed the book urgently, I was obliged to trace each page of it on a separate sheet of tracing paper, omitting the references, and when these sheets were bound I used them for some years with great benefit. Moreover, the volume of the English translation of Bunsen's work formed a veritable tomb for Birch's Dictionary. The title-page of it sets forth quite clearly that the "Historical Investigation" was by Bunsen, and that it was translated from the German by Charles H. Cottrell, Esq., M.A., and that it contains "Additions by Samuel Birch, LL.D." But who could possibly imagine from this last remark that Birch's contribution was 594 pages, i.e., nearly three-quarters of the whole volume, or that his contribution included an Egyptian Dictionary, the first ever published arranged on phonetic principles (!), and containing about 4,500 entries of Egyptian words, and names of gods and places, with references and translations, and an Egyptian Grammar and Chrestomathy? Or, again, take the case of the student who wants to consult these works and who, hearing that copies of them are to be seen in the British Museum Library, goes to the Reading Room to see them. He turns up the entry Birch, Samuel, LL.D., of the British Museum, in the Great Catalogue, but fails to find any mention of the Dictionary of Hieroglyphics or Grammar and Chrestomathy, because they are not mentioned in any one of the columns of names of the other books and papers which Birch wrote. All that he will find connecting Birch with an Egyptian Dictionary is the entry, " Sketch of a Hieroglyphical Dictionary, London, 1838," and unless he receives further instruction he will conclude that the " Sketch" published in 1838 is useless to him, and that Birch's Egyptian Dictionary never appeared.
An account from which several lessons can be learned.
Bob Richmond
The dictionary and grammar took the form of several hundred pages of extensive additions by Birch to Volume V of the (1867) English translation Egypt's place in Universal History of Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte (1845-) by C. C. J. Baron Bunsen. Birch and Bunson collaborated ten years earlier on additions to the English edition of Volume I (translated by Charles Cotterel; Longmans, 1848) notably concerning the writing system (including Appendix II - a hieroglyphic sign list).
About the typesetting process, Birch writes in his preface to Volume V:
The hieroglyphic used in this volume has been cast by Mr. Branston from designs drawn by Mr. Joseph Bonomi. It is the sole hieroglyphical fount in this country, and its importance can only be sufficiently appreciated from the consideration that Messrs. Longman have fulfilled, at a heavy cost, a task only undertaken abroad by foreign governments.
The advantage of this type to the present volume cannot be too highly appreciated, as it has rendered it practicable to print the Egyptian Dictionary, the Grammar, and the Chrestomathy in a form which renders the study of the hieroglyphs accessible both to the student and general enquirer. The Dictionary is the only one hitherto printed in this country, nor has any hieroglyphical dictionary appeared elsewhere, except that of Champollion, published in 1841, which contained only a few of the principal words. Its phonetic arrangement will, it is hoped, render it particularly easy of consultation. It has been a great labour to compile and print it, and the execution of it has been a task of many years.
A feature of the Bonomi typeface is the use of mostly solid filled in hieroglyphs. There is no attempt to detail most signs as is popular practice for the majority of hieroglyphic fonts later and nowadays.
Hieroglyphic typesetting was new technology in the mid-Nineteenth century and many later publications followed, using a variety of fonts, The Lepsius/Theinhardt font is probably the best known from that era.
Modern digital hieroglyphic, both the first generation MdC approach and the new Unicode/Opentype based systems, have characteristics that can be traced back though the early works by Birch and Lepsius. The corpus of 150 years of hieroglyphic content in type has proved very useful in devising new techniques and designing new fonts.
Some developments don't happen overnight. The goal to make hieroglyphic available to the student and general enquirer expressed by Birch has advanced gradually over 150 years with many modern publications available fairly inexpensively in print. Yet in terms of the potential of modern technology, there is much more to be done.
Sadly, the Birch publication never made it to the best seller lists of the day.
E. A. Budge dedicated his Dictionary of Hieroglyphs (1920) to the memory of Samuel Birch (whose Ancient Egyptian courses he attended and later worked with for a couple of years at the British Museum). In the introduction to his dictionary, Budge writes:
... it is quite impossible to hide the fact that the inclusion of Birch's Egyptian Dictionary in the fifth volume of the English translation was a great misfortune for the Dictionary itself and for the beginner in Egyptology for whom the work was primarily intended. There was an interval of seven years between the publication of the fourth and fifth volumes of the English translation of Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte, arid there seems to be no doubt that public interest in Bunsen's scheme of chronology drooped when its author died in 1860, the year which saw the appearance of the fourth volume, and was practically dead when the fifth volume was published in 1867. According to Birch, the volume fell " flat," and its editor and publishers were greatly disappointed. Whether the edition was a small one or not I have no evidence to show, but it was certainly the fact that for some reason or other copies of the volume were difficult to get in the early "seventies." It was said at the time that the publishers, being dissatisfied with the sales, had "disposed" of the sheets of a large number of copies The natural result was that when people found out that the volume contained Birch's Dictionary and Grammar and Chrestomathy the copies that found their way into the market fetched relatively very high prices, or at all events prices which effectively placed the book beyond the reach of the ordinary student. When I attended Birch's Egyptian classes in 1875-76 and needed the book urgently, I was obliged to trace each page of it on a separate sheet of tracing paper, omitting the references, and when these sheets were bound I used them for some years with great benefit. Moreover, the volume of the English translation of Bunsen's work formed a veritable tomb for Birch's Dictionary. The title-page of it sets forth quite clearly that the "Historical Investigation" was by Bunsen, and that it was translated from the German by Charles H. Cottrell, Esq., M.A., and that it contains "Additions by Samuel Birch, LL.D." But who could possibly imagine from this last remark that Birch's contribution was 594 pages, i.e., nearly three-quarters of the whole volume, or that his contribution included an Egyptian Dictionary, the first ever published arranged on phonetic principles (!), and containing about 4,500 entries of Egyptian words, and names of gods and places, with references and translations, and an Egyptian Grammar and Chrestomathy? Or, again, take the case of the student who wants to consult these works and who, hearing that copies of them are to be seen in the British Museum Library, goes to the Reading Room to see them. He turns up the entry Birch, Samuel, LL.D., of the British Museum, in the Great Catalogue, but fails to find any mention of the Dictionary of Hieroglyphics or Grammar and Chrestomathy, because they are not mentioned in any one of the columns of names of the other books and papers which Birch wrote. All that he will find connecting Birch with an Egyptian Dictionary is the entry, " Sketch of a Hieroglyphical Dictionary, London, 1838," and unless he receives further instruction he will conclude that the " Sketch" published in 1838 is useless to him, and that Birch's Egyptian Dictionary never appeared.
An account from which several lessons can be learned.
Bob Richmond
Monday 16 January 2017
Establishing the next Expansion of the Egyptian Hieroglyph Repertoire in Unicode
As I noted in my previous post, 2016 saw progress in identifying methodologies along with lists of candidate hieroglyphs for inclusion in an expansion to the 1071 already available in Unicode since 2009, I expect a formal proposal for an initial expansion set to emerge this year, probably for release in the Unicode 11 (2018) or Unicode 12 (2019) timescale.
Note: announcements and discussions on Ancient Egyptian and Unicode now take place on the "Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS" mailing list (see blog post Informatique et Égyptologie - Cambridge - 2016 for link and comments).
Also, it is now possible to check your Manuel de Codage (MdC) documents (from JSesh etc.) online for hieroglyphs currently missing in Unicode. See my October post MdC analysis for Unicode Repertoire Extensions. I hope to keep this up to date during the next few months as Unicode proposals firm up.
Finally. There is much potential for hieroglyphic already in Unicode now the script has become better supported in recent years by advance in font technology, web browsers, word processors and so on. I hope to see substantial progress this year. As far as the repertoire is concerned I personally use a systematic way of working with hieroglyphs not yet in Unicode and hope to publish details and resources about this system when I'm comfortable it works well alongside expected developments of the formal standard though 2019. Meanwhile I'd be pleased to hear from others working with expanded repertoire in Unicode so we don't duplicate work. Thanks.
Bob Richmond
Note: announcements and discussions on Ancient Egyptian and Unicode now take place on the "Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS" mailing list (see blog post Informatique et Égyptologie - Cambridge - 2016 for link and comments).
Also, it is now possible to check your Manuel de Codage (MdC) documents (from JSesh etc.) online for hieroglyphs currently missing in Unicode. See my October post MdC analysis for Unicode Repertoire Extensions. I hope to keep this up to date during the next few months as Unicode proposals firm up.
Finally. There is much potential for hieroglyphic already in Unicode now the script has become better supported in recent years by advance in font technology, web browsers, word processors and so on. I hope to see substantial progress this year. As far as the repertoire is concerned I personally use a systematic way of working with hieroglyphs not yet in Unicode and hope to publish details and resources about this system when I'm comfortable it works well alongside expected developments of the formal standard though 2019. Meanwhile I'd be pleased to hear from others working with expanded repertoire in Unicode so we don't duplicate work. Thanks.
Bob Richmond
Sunday 8 January 2017
Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) documents on Egyptian Hieroglyphic 2016
I thought it would be useful to compile a list of documents relating to Ancient Egyptian in the 2016 Unicode Technical Committee (UTC) document registry. I've added a few notes for explanation.
UTC meets every three months so I've included minutes of the meetings where Egyptian has been on the agenda. Only one formal proposal was made during the year but there were various drafts, discussion documents and comments about the hieroglyphic writing system and the hieroglyph repertoire.
Following the I&E Cambridge 2016 meeting in July, it was agreed that discussions on Ancient Egyptian and Unicode would take place on the "Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS" mailing list (see blog post Informatique et Égyptologie - Cambridge - 2016). If you are interested in following progress or feel you have something to contribute to digital hieroglyphic developments at any level I recommend you join the mailing list.
I also hope to continue to track developments on this blog as the pieces of the puzzle come together this year.
January to March
July to September
October to December
Bob Richmond
UTC meets every three months so I've included minutes of the meetings where Egyptian has been on the agenda. Only one formal proposal was made during the year but there were various drafts, discussion documents and comments about the hieroglyphic writing system and the hieroglyph repertoire.
Following the I&E Cambridge 2016 meeting in July, it was agreed that discussions on Ancient Egyptian and Unicode would take place on the "Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the UCS" mailing list (see blog post Informatique et Égyptologie - Cambridge - 2016). If you are interested in following progress or feel you have something to contribute to digital hieroglyphic developments at any level I recommend you join the mailing list.
I also hope to continue to track developments on this blog as the pieces of the puzzle come together this year.
January to March
- L2/16-018 Proposal to encode three control characters for Egyptian Hieroglyphs (revised); Bob Richmond, Andrew Glass; 2016-01-27
- L2/16-028 Preliminary draft of the extended Egyptian Hieroglyphs repertoire; Michel Suignard; 2016-01-21
- L2/16-037 Recommendations to UTC #146 January 2016 on Script Proposals; Deborah Anderson, et al; 2016-01-24
- L2/16-004 UTC #146 Minutes; Lisa Moore; 2016-02-01
Summary. The L2/16-018 proposal was a clarification of L2/15-123 "Proposal to encode three control characters for Egyptian Hieroglyphs (revised); Bob Richmond; 2015-05-04" addressing all feedback received to date. This proposal was put out to ballot as a UTC recommendation from meeting #146.
April to June
April to June
- L2/16-079 Preliminary draft for the encoding of an extended Egyptian Hieroglyphs repertoire; Michel Suignard; 2016-04-20
- L2/16-090 Comments on three control characters for Egyptian Hieroglyphs; Mark-Jan Nederhof, Vinodh Rajan with additional comments by Richter et al (TLA project) and a note by Polis and Rosmorduc (Ramses Project). 2016-04-25.
- L2/16-104 Observations: L2/16-090 [Egyptian]; Bob Richmond; 2016-05-02
- L2/16-121 UTC #147 Minutes; Lisa Moore; 2016-05-20
July to September
- L2/16-177 A comprehensive system of control characters for Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic text (preliminary version); Mark-Jan Nederhof; 2016-06-30
- L2/16-199 A suggestion ... for Ancient Egyptian; William Overington; 2016-07-21
- L2/16-210 A system of control characters for Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic text; Mark-Jan Nederhof, et al; 2016-07-25
- L2/16-204 Recently Closed Action Items (since 2016-05-05); Rick McGowan; 2016-07-25
- L2/16-214 An Extension to the three control characters for Egyptian Hieroglyphs and some additional remarks; Bob Richmond; 2016-08-01
- L2/16-216 Recommendations to UTC #148 August 2016 on Script Proposals; Deborah Anderson, et al; 2016-08-01
- L2/16-218 Brief Report from Cambridge meeting of Egyptologists and Update; Deborah Anderson; 2016-08-01
- L2/16-227 The Universal Hieroglyphic Writing System: Consensus and possible compromise; Bob Richmond; 2016-08-04
- L2/16-231 Proposal for Ancient Egyptian encoding in Unicode; Serge Rosmorduc, et al; 2016-08-04
- L2/16-233 Addendum to: A system of control characters for Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic text; Mark-Jan Nederhof, et al; 2016-08-05
- L2/16-203 UTC #148 Minutes; Lisa Moore; 2016-08-18
- L2/16-250 Preliminary proposal to encode Möller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs in the SMP (WG2 N4741); Michael Everson; 2016-09-14
- L2/16-251 Preliminary Mapping table of Möller's Egyptian Hieroglyphs (WG2 N4742 ; see also associated spreadsheet); Deborah Anderson; 2016-09-12
- L2/16-257 Source analysis of an extended Egyptian Hieroglyphs repertoire (Hieroglyphica); Michel Suignard; 2016-09-20
October to December
- L2/16-298 Draft additional repertoire for ISO/IEC 10646:2016 (5th ed.) Amendment 1.2 (WG2 N4770); Michel Suignard; 2016-10-27
- L2/16-307 Towards an Expansion of the Unicode Hieroglyph repertoire; Bob Richmond; 2016-10-28
- L2/16-326 Recently Closed Action Items (since 2016-07-25); Rick McGowan; 2016-11-06
- L2/16-342 Recommendations to UTC #149 November 2016 on Script Proposals; Deborah Anderson, et al 2016-11-07.
- L2/16-325 UTC #149 Minutes; Lisa Moore; 2016-11-18
Summary. L2/16-298 draft allocates a block 13430-1343F Egyptian Hieroglyphs Format Controls with two characters defined: U+13430 EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH HORIZONTAL JOINER and U+13431 EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH VERTICAL JOINER and as things stand these are to be part of the repertoire of Unicode 10.0 (Summer 2017). Other repertoire and writing system issues are still being investigated and I expect activity to continue at 2016 levels during this year.
Bob Richmond
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)