Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew transliteration

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Trevor Peterson <06peterson AT cua.edu>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew transliteration
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:31:06 -0800

On 19/01/2004 12:18, Trevor Peterson wrote:

Peter wrote:


I was just looking at version 57 of a mapping file intended for converting text in just one legacy format into Unicode. This is 45 KB of code. I made the first draft of this more than three years ago, and several others have been working on it since. It should be released shortly, after going through more revisions, as part of a new version of the Ezra SIL package. This file is full of all kinds of mapping complexities because the legacy encoding had used different conventions from Unicode. And this package doesn't even cover the most tricky issue, which is bidirectional ordering.


Why does the conversion have to be done?

A good question, but there are a lot of answers, and different ones apply to different users:

1) SIL has made a strategic decisions (and a very necessary one considering its worldwide operations)to convert all its corporate data and processing to Unicode.

2) Data in legacy encodings needs to be communicated with the worldwide community of Hebrew users, most of whom are not using the SIL legacy encoding.

3) A lot of the material is being prepared for publication on the web and on electronic media.

4) Microsoft and other software no longer supports proper rendering of legacy encoded complex scripts.

5) Material for archiving needs to be stored in formats which are guaranteed to be readable for the foreseeable future.

6) Some people want to get out of their own little corners and keep up with the modern world.

7) See below...

8) See below...

...
Nope. I already pointed out that there are Israeli scholars working in the
same field. I wasn't trying to discount the value of their work; but there
are good scholars working in several languages in several countries in
several scripts. Do the needs of exchanging information with them have
anything to do with how I encode the BH that I use when I write?


Yes, if you are going to communicate with them by electronic means. Unless, of course, you think that Israeli scholars want to receive texts from you in Latin script transliteration. In any case, what they send to you will be in Unicode so you need to be able to read it.

...

In that case we need to be able to communicate with them. A good start is to be able to read the Bible passages which they quote, and for which they will of course use the encoding that everyone else in Israel uses.


Which has nothing to do with anything when I read their work in print. It's
only relevant if we're talking about direct electronic exchange. In such
situations, we have to take whatever steps are necessary to communicate. But
even if this were something I did regularly with Israeli scholars (right now,
I don't), ...

You seem to be in touch with several on this list and the Aramaic list, although in English which is probably not their preference. I'm not suggesting we should use modern Hebrew on these lists, but it would make things easier for them I guess if we could use Hebrew script when we quote words from the biblical text.

... there would be plenty of ways to achieve intelligibility. Sure, it might
be easiest to use Unicode (and I can do that without any problem); but we
could always exchange pdfs if no other solution presented itself.

Well, that would be a possible solution, but Unicode is much neater and easier, so why do you oppose it?

Plus, whether you like it or not, many non-Jewish biblical scholars are starting to use Unicode, so you need to be able to communicate with them.


And I can, whether I use Unicode or not. The great part is that I also have
the option of using Unicode if I choose. That has nothing to do with what I
have to do in most of my writing.

Well, if it is convenient for you to use different systems...

What about if a scholar in Israel sends you a text in Unicode Hebrew and you want to include it in something you are writing not in Unicode? Either you will have to retype it, or that is use 7) for the conversion tools mentioned above.

[snipped]


Wouldn't it be a lot easier if we could just assume that everyone has the same standard Hebrew setup?


It would if everyone could agree that Unicode meets all the needs we might
have. Right now, not everyone does. Perhaps they never will. ...

Please can you be explicit this time. What needs do we have which, according to some people, Unicode does not meet? If there are such needs, I will do my best to get them added to Unicode. If people think there are needs not met but they are met, I want to educate them properly. Or is this a bit like saying that we shouldn't try to fly round the world because some people think it is flat?

... In any event, there are plenty of other ways to get the job done. Why
can't I consider Unicode one tool among others--useful when it's right for
the job, irrelevant when it's not?

Do what you like, Trevor, in private. Just don't expect the rest of us to pick up the pieces later. Those papers you are writing in legacy encoding for a print-only journal. What if in a few years some e-journal, or some print journal which is fully computerised, wants to take your paper and republish it? You might fiind you have to retype the whole thing. Don't expect others to do that for you - although you might just want my conversion software, use 8).

...
Have you looked at what real typesetting applications like TeX can do in this
respect? Proponents would usually argue the other way, saying that Unicode
can't produce the same quality output.


That's not a Unicode problem, rather a problem that there is not yet good Unicode-compatible typesetting software. But I thought there was a Unicode version of TeX now; no reason for that to produce worse Hebrew output than the legacy one.

...

I won't rehash the arguments against WYSIWYG word processing here. It
shouldn't be hard to find them using Google.


One of the first few it comes up with is http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~isaacl/Library/LaTeX_sucks.html.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page