On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:53:51 -0700
fantasai <fantasai.lists_at_inkedblade.net> wrote:
>On 04/02/2012 04:05 AM, mpsuzuki_at_hiroshima-u.ac.jp wrote:
>>
>> I appreciate your careful attitude considering the possibility
>> that the found short vertical strings are formed under the
>> influence of Chinese typography.
>>
>> So, for further discussion, we need an UCS Yi materials with
>> vertical text that has no influence from Chinese typography?
>> How to evaluate the influence? If the book has a colophone
>> in Chinese, it should be excluded?
>
>It is not the influence of Chinese typography that I'm concerned
>with so much (since that probably goes back many hundreds of
>years!), but the limitations of the software that was used to
>typeset the book and the biases and assumptions of the people
>running the software.
Thank you for correction. Then, what kind of materials
should be collected to discuss the appropriate orientation
for UCS Yi? If the central issue would be the software,
the handwritten materials or, metal typesetted materials
may be the evidence. But if the central issue would be
the biases and assumptions, the contact with native users
of UCS Yi (who were not exposed under the influences of
non-Yi texts) would be essential.
>Also if the people typesetting the book are familiar with Chinese
>but not with Yi, they might assume that these characters, which like
>ideographs also fit in fixed-size boxes, should behave the same as
>Chinese. This is a reasonable assumption. But it may not be correct.
Excuse me, please let me confirm my understanding of
"it may not be correct", my English is quite poor.
Do you think as
"The assumption (behaviour like Chinese text) has no foundation,
so it is not reliable",
or,
"It is inconsistent with the vertical text of Old Yi,
so it is wrong".
Which opinion matches with your attitude?
Regards,
mpsuzuki
Received on Tue Apr 03 2012 - 20:48:40 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Apr 03 2012 - 20:48:42 CDT