Re: VMs: EVA

[Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Dennis <tsalagi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It's clear that Currier /M/ is a single glypheme. 
> One 
> assumes that Currier /IN/ and Currier /IID/
> represent two 
> and three glyphemes, respectively, because the /M/ 
> alternative was available and yet not used.    EVA
> /iin/, 
> however, could be from one to three glyphemes. 
> Currier can 
> indeed give three alternatives for this case.   If
> there be 
> any objection to EVA as a transcription medium, it
> would lie  here and any similar cases.

That would be correct, since there is only one variant
of Eva-i, and that is the one that connects to the
next character, at the top, to form such things
as (ih) and (i'h). 
I must admit that it is not so clear to me how the
difference between Cur-M and Cur-IID would look.
I am also not at all sure that Currier ever used
anything else than Cur-M for this character. 
Note that Currier does not distinguish between
the various forms of Eva-sh, which is far more
visible.

Anyway, the definition of a transcription alphabet
always includes a compromise. If you differentiate
between all possible variants of characters,
you end up with a too large character set, and you
cannot do any useful statistics because characters
and words that should be the same, appear differently.
If you make the wrong assumption about which 
similar-looking squiggles are meant to be the same,
you make the opposite mistake.

Our problem is that we can very well observe
what is there, but we cannot really decide what 
it was that the author intended.
(Despite regular on-list claims to the contrary,
I might add).

Best wishes,
         Rene


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list