VMs: Re: Transcription Ramble

[illumin8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

GC,

Minus your completely inappropriate political views (true or false) in
THIS venue, I whole-heartedly agree with the following snippets:

> There is a
> vast conceptual difference between <daiin> and {8am).
>
> there is a
> wide variance of opinion reflected by previous students on what constitutes
> an actaul glyph or VMS character.
> 
> It's not the EVA transcription itself
> that gets my goat, but the consistent misuse of it.
> 
> It's not in the design, but in the implementation and regular maintenance
> that this particular transcription falls short.
> 
> Which comes closer to what you see in the VMS, at
> least in ASCII - <daiin> or {8am}?  Text is a visual medium, but <daiin> was
> apparently designed to be spoken.  If I write {4ohcc89 8am 8oe}, you could
> easily find the groupings similar to this representation in the VMS, but if
> I write <qoteedy daiin dol>, you have to go to a translation table to see
> what the heck I"m trying to say.
>
> EVA
> clearly missed the mark in its attempt to allow for better communication by
> not recognizing the medium we commonly use to communicate, and as worthy an
> effort as it is, it lacks the elements necessary to gain my support.
> 
> The effect of the implementation of EVA
> has been that this research has been brought to a halt.
>
> No attempt has
> been made to correct this transcription or keep it up-to-date with new
> information and modifications.
> 
> EVA is both counter-intuitive to a textual medium, and unsuited for
> analytical purposes.
>
> Is there really anybody out there that thinks
> <ch> shouldn't be represented by a single character, or that the <s> in <sh>
> has any relationship whatsoever to the standalone <s> in the EVA
> transcripton?
>
> GC
> 
I've tried to have the, "What is a character?" argument but no one seems
to care. They'd rather argue about entropy's h1 & h2. Of course until
the last couple years' FREE fotos it was all pointless for the average
Joe to even discuss something that could not be seen with his own eyes.

Stand-alone characters are key to me. The marginal keys (if original)
f049v & f066r and the rings on f057v show many PARTS of glyphs that are
usually considered whole.

I WILL really argue with you about whether CUR /Z/, Frogguy [c't], EVA
<Sh> has a relationship to /2/[s]<s>. I say it's entirely possible. But
I am completely willing to allow it to be represented by a single
character for transcription purposes.
	Either we're dealing with shapes determined by phonemes (like John
Wilkins 1668, Francis Lodwick 1686, Bell's "Visible Speech", JRR Tolkien
1930s, Kingsley Read 1950s) and/or shapes determined by calligraphy
(like bdpgq) or shapes determined by random selection from existing
symbols (tachygraphy, diplomatic ciphers 1400s-1600s, Sequoia 1820s).
They're too regular to be meaningless. I've seen made-up random writing.
It's quite obvious when no two signs are alike or ever repeat.

I CONSTANTLY have to open my EVA chart file just to see what people are
meaning to write. I finally just had to print it out to consult it
DAILY. There is a HUGE disconnect in my mind between EVA and the Ms.


illumin8

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list