Re: VMs: Re: How to write <ch> and <sh>...?

["Larry Roux" <LRoux@xxxxxxx>]

Several reasons:

1) The "c" in "ch" appears with other characters - ie cy, so it *may*
be a distinct glyph.
2) with EVA you can easily say 'cph' and we know what that means.  If
you force 'ch' into one glyph then you must come up with separate glyphs
for 'cph' 'cfh' 'ck'h 'cth' etc.   having 'c' and ''h separate is the
most economical use of glyphs.

Is it really THAT annoying?






Larry Roux
Syracuse University
lroux@xxxxxxx


>>> John.Koontz@xxxxxxxxxxxx 8/5/2004 12:30:40 PM >>>
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, GC wrote:
> I'm not an EVA officionado because I'm unaware of the rules, I'm not
an EVA
> officinado because there's absolutely NO reason whatsover to refer to
a
> glyph that occurs about 10,000 times (no exaggeration) as <ch>,
while
> referring to another glyph that occurs to a lesser extent (about
9,000)in
> the manuscript as an <a>.  Who made these rules anyway?  If it's
<ch>, why
> isn't it also <ei> for the {a} glyph?  <ch> occurs more often as a
unit than
> <a> does, yet it's been complicated by the "this stroke counts, that
stroke
> doesn't" ambiguity.  If you're going to stroke, then stroke.

I suspect the reason for settling on ch/sh vs. a is that ch sometimes
occures bracketing a gallows, whereas a (ei) never occurs bracketing
anything.  As far as sh, like ch, as it seems to be a derivation of
sh,
though I guess it doesn't ever bracket anything.

On the same logic, it would be useful to write the gallows as
digraphs,
since they sometimes embed things.

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