Dear All,
since this is my first post in the mailing list, I should probably say that I have been a student of Tamil at the Charles University for some time now, as well as computing science, and it is my pleasure getting to know everyone in this list.
As a disclaimer for the discussion below, I am a member of the Unicode Consortium and participating in the corresponding ISO/IEC 10646 standard for encoding. I am happy to work with anyone and submit proposals for encoding if needed. While sometimes the process is indeed complicated and lengthy when there are controversies or insufficient evidence, some of the proposals get through fairly quickly. That said, lack of font support has never been a convincing argument for encoding, and I am pretty sure no precomposed characters that can already be composed with combining diacritical marks will be accepted. I am happy to add precomposed glyphs to existing fonts you may be using though, feel free to contact me offline.
As for ISO15919, that standard is now undergoing periodical review every 5 years, the next one will be in 2022. Again, I would be happy to submit comments to the standard if there is a consensus.
Dániel: Unfortunately I can't support making the standard case sensitive. The strong argument there is compatibility - suddenly everyone conforming to the standard will become non-conforming. However, I don't see how you transliterating into Latin script with casing would be non-conforming to the standard. The standard says "casing doesn't matter", not "must be lowercase'. It is just that any automated processing of the text that conforms to the standard wouldn't see a difference, and it might not round-trip (the standard already points out in Annex F that the round-trip situation is not great anyway). As noted by Andrew Ollett, lowercasing is what many algorithms (sadly) use for case insensitive processing. For that reason for example, Unicode never allows a new lowercase version to be encoded as a casing pair to an existing uppercase latter.
Rolf Heinrich Koch: As Dániel noted, combining diacritics is the correct way to go in this case. If that is cumbersome to input, a keyboard layout with such keys can be created (again, contact me offline if anyone was interested in that).
George Hart: I agree the situation is unfortunate, but also that it is unreasonable to expect all Sanskritists to change their practice. I believe our Sanskrit textbooks (by prof. Zbavitel as well as by prof. Vacek) used ē and ō for example. You can have a font that shows the macrons over normal e and o if and only if the text language is set to Sanskrit. When merging data from two languages I am afraid the best thing to do will be on your side, to pre-process the Sanskrit text before merging.
Tyler Williams: Indeed glyph variants are higher-level text features that wouldn't be typically encoded in plain text. You can for example use OpenType features to achieve the desired rendering in the native script. I would be interested in seeing any inscriptions with non-standard orthography that you might have troubles typesetting. I am not aware of any standard that would be covering these in transliteration though
Hope this helps and best regards,
Jan Kučera
________________________________________
From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of Dániel Balogh via INDOLOGY < indology@list.indology.info >
Sent: 21 June 2019 13:30
To: indology
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] ISO15919 and case insensitivity
Dear All, thanks for your comments about the ISO encoding issue. In hopes of keeping the discussion afloat, here are some responses.
Rolf Heinrich Koch's problem seems to relate to the Unicode standard and not to ISO15919 or any other specific encoding system. I have no first-hand knowledge, but I think the unicode consortium can be approached to designate code points for additional Latin letters with diacritical marks; I think, however, that this is a complicated and lengthy process that carries little chance of success since the combination in question seems to be needed only by a very small population of scholars. It is, however, always possible to use a combining diacritic to generate the character m̌ (or, according to ISO15919, m̆). For this, use a regular m followed by the character U+030C (floating caron) or, for the latter, U+0306 (floating breve). Similarly, r and l with circle below (used instead of the IAST underdot to represent vocalic r and l) can only be typed as such a combination.
To George Hart's problem, as pointed out by Heinrich, a partial solution is already present. ISO15919 prescribes ē and ō in Sanskrit texts/words of a mixed corpus that includes languages where short and long e/o are distinguished. As a nod to IAST and the widespread practice of Sanskritists, it _allows_ e and o for these long vowels so long as they are used in a Sanskrit-only corpus. I agree that the situation is not ideal, but - rather than persuading Sanskritists to use ē and ō consistently - the way to improve it may be the use of language tagging, so that any segment of transliterated Indic text can be recognised by a computer as belonging to a particular language.
For the issues raised by Tyler Williams: I think the first one (alternative glyphs for the same phoneme) is beyond the scope of transliteration and belongs either to a palaeographic description or, if machine readability and indexability are desired, to the sphere of markup. As for the second, I would be interested in some further details, on or off list. Are any vowel mātrās other than what would normally represent an ā used in such a way? Could you give some examples, what language, time period, and what does the addition of an extra mātrā signify? Arlo and I have been thinking about a way of representing one particular case of this, and if there are other related phenomena, then knowing about them would help us propose a solution that can be extended to those.
To Andrew Ollett's caution that using uppercase Latin letters for final consonant forms may not be better than adding the transliteration equivalent of a virāma (and likewise, uppercase for independent vowels versus a special marker attached to the transliterated vowel), I can only say that I also have no strong argument for this usage. The weak arguments for would run like this: 1. better grapheme-to-grapheme matching between the original script and the transliteration; and 2. actually, easier automated processing in some cases at least, e.g. a basic case insensitive search would still find the expected results in a transliterated text that uses uppercase for these purposes, while the search algorithm would need to be devised to ignore the additional marks for independent vowel and virāma. The same applies to downcasing the text for conversion to Devanagari - it should be no problem. I should add that we do want to retain a special virāma equivalent for glyphs with an explicit virāma, though this is also slightly problematic, e.g. in case of the "proto-virāma" comprised of a small dash or arch on top of a subscript final consonant form
The very best to everyone,
Daniel
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 19:00, Andrew Ollett via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info<mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A point of clarification: would the same document ever use both a "halant variant" of a letter (e.g., the final n of the Kannada script) and the standard variant followed by a virāma sign? I'm asking because my instinct would be to simply represent the halant variant of a consonant C as C· (or whatever sign you're using for the virāma). It's true that the final form of the letter in Kannada doesn't "look like" a regular n with a virāma, but then again the letter kh doesn't look like k + h.
I'm sure Dániel knows of it, but in case others don't, an article that Arlo co-authored with Bob Hudson, Marc Miyake and Julian Wheatley (BEFEO 103 [2017]: 43–205) includes a discussion of adapting the ISO-15919 standards for Pyu, according to which °V is used for an independent vowel sign and · is used for the virāma. I have been using these conventions for diplomatic transcription. I don't have a strong argument for or against uppercase letters in transliteration, but here are two weak arguments against it: (1) uppercase letters are more likely to cause problems in any automated processing (e.g., replacements or transliteration) especially in mixed-language text; (2) people sometimes use Western capitalization style for transliterated text, and even though the use of this style (e.g., in lists of bibliographic references) will almost never overlap with the epigraphic and codicological applications Dániel has in mind, we might want to avoid certain letters changing their meaning across use-cases. For what it's worth, I often have text in ISO-15919 that I feed into Sanscript to be transliterated into Indic scripts, and I always downcase the text before applying the transliteration.
Andrew
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:50 AM Tyler Williams via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info<mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> wrote:
Dear Dániel (and Arlo),
While I'm afraid that I cannot contribute any answers to your questions, I do want to express support for your effort of finding ways to modify ISO15919 for epigraphical and codicological material. In addition to the issue of initial/full vowels and missing consonant glyphs in manuscripts, I frequently run into problems with transliterating manuscript material (usually vernacular but sometimes Sanskrit) that 1) uses multiple glyphs for the what is ostensibly the same consonant (perhaps the result of unstated phonological rules), or 2) in which vowel matras are used appended to full vowel glyphs to indicate certain sounds (e.g. dipthongs). This is in addition to the numerous challenges posed by transliterating texts copied in the Arabic script, which represents morphological distinctions orthographically through the use of word breaks, diacritical marks, etc.
All this to say that, should there be a discussion on proposed changes, I would be happy to contribute (and learn from others).
Best,
Tyler
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 6:54 PM Arlo Griffiths via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info<mailto:indology@list.indology.info>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
It is possible to obtain some responses to the questions that Dániel asked on our joint behalf? It would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks, and best wishes,
Arlo Griffiths
________________________________
From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info<mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info>> on behalf of Dániel Balogh via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info<mailto:indology@list.indology.info>>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 10:52 AM
To: indology
Subject: [INDOLOGY] ISO15919 and case insensitivity
Dear All,
I believe some members of the esteemed community reading this were involved in drawing up the ISO15919 transliteration standard. I would be very happy to correspond with someone, here or off-list, about some generic issues and at the moment one particular question.
The generic issues would pertain to using a modified ISO standard in web and hardcopy publications, including some modifications that prevent us from making a "claim of conformance" as per section 2 of the standard. Beyond the practical issue of having to explain to our readers where we deviate from the standard, I see no problem associated with this, but I may be missing something. At any rate, a proliferation of idiosyncratic transliteration systems is not desirable, which leads to the second set of generic issues: by whom and how is the ISO standard maintained at present, and is there any chance of proposing slight modifications/addenda/special cases to it?
The particular question right now is this. The standard explicitly says that all transliterations must be case insensitive (Section 8.1 Rule 1). Some of us, however, are thinking of using uppercase Roman characters to transliterate 1. final consonants represented in historic scripts by special "halanta" character forms (instead of the addition of a virāma sign), and 2. initial/full vowels.
The latter could be made clear using the disambiguation sign already codified in the standard (e.g. transliterating प्रउग as pra:uga), but we feel that using Roman uppercase for both these phenomena is intuitively similar to the practice of the original script. [Not directly relevant to the question at hand is that we would also introduce an additional symbol for transliterating the explicit virāma sign to handle final or conjunct consonants created with such a sign.]
We would use this notation for epigraphic material, but as far as I can see it would be equally advantageous in codicology where a diplomatic transliteration is desirable. Unambiguously (and in some cases redundantly) differentiating final vowel forms is useful not only in cases where these are used as a means of text segmentation (e.g. the final consonant of a verse quarter is inscribed using a special form, followed by the initial consonant of the next quarter, without an intervening punctuation sign but with the clear intent of representing the yati in writing), but also where partially legible text precedes or follows a lacuna (e.g. occasionally a legible vowel mātrā is attached to a lost/illegible consonant, and it is desirable to make it clear in the transliteration that the vowel read is not a full vowel akṣara).
Many thanks in advance for any enlightening comments, and my apologies for going into possibly unnecessary detail on the why and how.
Daniel
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info<mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>
indology-owner@list.indology.info<mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info<mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>
indology-owner@list.indology.info<mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info<mailto:INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>
indology-owner@list.indology.info<mailto:indology-owner@list.indology.info> (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)