On 12/09/2002 04:30:54 PM ekeown wrote: >> Does this have any implications regarding the issue as to whether there is >> another distinct accent needing to be encoded?
[snip] >However, I think the main differences between the big scholars >will end up being in how one programs with the accents, once >they are enough semantically differentiated that we can really >write algorithms with them. Without knowing exactly what you have in mind, we need to be careful about "semantic" differentiation: Unicode should support distinctions between characters, but it should necessarily not be required to support linguistic distinctions in the text those characters are used to represent. Thus, if a manuscript consistently uses two different symbols contrastively, that provides evidence in support of encoding two characters. But if a symbol is used for two distinct meanings, that distinction in meaning alone is generally not a good argument in favour of encoding distinct characters. That might not be what you had in mind, but I thought it would be good to clarify that point. > Yeivin and Dotan, for example, have >very different views of the structural meaning of the >accents, Does that mean that Dotan would or might disagree with Yeivin on the issue that later manuscripts neutralise a distinction that was made in earlier manuscripts between the servi used with pazer and that used with oleh we-yored? (I realise Dotan and others might not have ever written on the topic, thus leaving no basis to answer that question.) - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
