For what its worth I did not think of doing anything with the YODs because
of their close correspondence to
1F30 GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI
1F38 GREEK CAPITAL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI
Which in practice would look all the more like the YODs because of the
standard egyptological practice if italicising transliterations.
But having said that I certainly have no problem with these characters and
this is somewhat more systematic that would be the case were one to use
iotas.
- Spencer
Michael Everson
<everson@evertyp
e.com>
Sent by:
unicode-bounce@u To: unicode@unicode.org
nicode.org cc:
Subject: Re: Egyptian Transliteration Characters
27.09.01 12:41
At 15:05 -0700 2001-09-26, §?§Û§?§¶§Í§Â§¶§½ wrote:
>Is this the same Unicode that encodes characters and not glyphs?
Yes, it is, and I am not certain that Mark's "strong" suspicion is
correct because I have seen a lot of data. But I'll be asking
Egyptologists.
> >1. LATIN CAPITAL LETTER EGYPTOLOGICAL YOD
>>LATIN SMALL LETTER EGYPTOLOGICAL YOD
>>2. LATIN CAPITAL LETTER EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN
>>LATIN SMALL LETTER EGYPTOLOGICAL AYIN
>>
>>I strongly suspect that current diacritics (for 1) and modifier letters
(for
>>2) are similar enough in shape to what is required that they can be used.
>>Are there any other characters used by Egyptologist that are so close in
>shape to i?? and ?? or ?? that they cannot be used?
I don't know what i?? and ?? or ?? were meant to be, Mark.
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland Telephone +353 86 807 9169 *** Fax +353 1 478 2597 (by arrangement)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Sep 27 2001 - 08:13:56 EDT