Re: VMs: Re: Transcription Ramble

[illumin8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > > GC
> > > Which comes closer to what you see in the VMS, at
> > > least in ASCII - <daiin> or {8am}?
> > > GC
> 
> Well, does it matter?
> 
> We have no idea about the true _phonetic_ value of the glyphs anyway, so which
> latin letter we assign to any glyph is arbitrary.
> 
> If we try to match the shapes, that's arbitrary just the same -- simply take the
> gallows, which don't readily resemble current latin letters.
> 
Arbitrary - certainly. But now we're getting to the meat of my argument.
What is a character? Since I don't have access to GC's historical
tachygraphic sources I say that character must be deduced by context.
It's all I can go on. Even tho I usually belong to the politically
incorrect comparative philology camp.

Most would probably say that gallows Currier /P/, Frogguy [qp], EVA <t>
is one character. But split gallows MUST alter that view. Is it akin to
a calligraphic flourish like joining the tops of the Ells in
"calligraphic" or in "flourish like"? Who knows at this point? They
don't occure stand-alone unless you believe that /4/[4]<q> is just the
left side lowered. I've never thot so. I used to think that /4/[4]<q> is
the initial form of the usually medial /e/[x]<l> but that view must be
changed in light of f001v line 6 right [xox]. No half-spaces to haggle
over.


> The good thing about EVA is IMHO, that it breaks down the VM script into the
> smallest reasonably identifiable units.
> 
> "m" already contains the interpretation, that <iin> is to be treated as _one_
> glyph, not two or three. But what are you going to do if you find out that this
> isn't so? In EVA, its trivial to compose several elements to a glyph to
> acommodate to any such finds, whereas in other transcription systems it's not so
> easy to _de_compose them.
> 
No doubt about deconstruction. I'm not against EVA's theory of strokes
transcription at all. I guess I'm saying that I'm against the very Latin
letters they chose. /M/<iin> look nothing like the Ms. [iiv] SHOWS me
exactly what it looks like. And if I were going to transcibe /P/ [qp]
<t> then I would use something that actually reminded me of the shape
like "H" or "9P". I thank GC for finally hitting me over the head with
the obvious. It's about VISUAL recognition. So, yes, it does matter to
me.


> I prefer EVA for it's unbiasdness (goodness, there must be a better word for
> it!), and for the fact that it keeps the loss of information to a minimum. You
> shouldn't put your own interpretation into the definition of a transcription
> scheme...
> 
You shouldn't but it's humanly impossible. And what transcription we use
MUST alter our perception of the Ms. So far, Frogguy most matches my
perception of what the VMs looks like. ;)


illumin8

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