Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Trevor Peterson" <06peterson AT cua.edu>]

Peter wrote:

> 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.

SIL is in a unique situation, because it has a lot of other linguistic
concerns beyond the regular needs of a biblical scholar.
> 
> 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.

Communicated in what capacity? Again, there is only a relatively small
set where I can see it making a difference (for instance, #3).
> 
> 3) A lot of the material is being prepared for publication on the web 
> and on electronic media.

Even "electronic media" varies. Pdfs are still a general standard of
information exchange, and it doesn't make much difference how they're
produced. I've already acknowledged the distinct position of Web work.
> 
> 4) Microsoft and other software no longer supports proper 
> rendering of 
> legacy encoded complex scripts.

How so? If I paste from BibleWorks (a rather old version) into Word XP,
it looks the same as it ever did.
> 
> 5) Material for archiving needs to be stored in formats which are 
> guaranteed to be readable for the foreseeable future.

Do you seriously think that material stored with a legacy font (assuming
that the font files are also stored) is not going to be readable in the
foreseeable future? Particularly since most of them have readily
decipherable correspondences, even without the font files, it wouldn't
be hard to recover the information.
> 
> 6) Some people want to get out of their own little corners 
> and keep up 
> with the modern world.

And some people have no problem taking modern innovation for what it is
while holding onto the treasures of the past. I would think of all
people, those studying Biblical Hebrew ought to understand that.
> 
> 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.

I presume they're willing to work with whatever conventions are current.
And yes, Roman transcription is still current in scholarship. Besides,
it's hardly limited to that. Case in point--an American writing a
dissertation in Scotland with an advisor in Israel. He does his work in
LaTeX, e-mails back and forth using transcription where necessary, sends
his written sections as pdfs, which the advisor prints, marks up with a
pen, and mails back. (Not that he would have to, but a lot of scholars
still prefer to work with hard copy when doing that type of thing.)

> In any case, what 
> they send to 
> you will be in Unicode so you need to be able to read it.

They don't use pdf in Israel? Besides, I already said I can maintain the
option of reading Unicode without making it my only means of producing
Hebrew text.
> 
[snipped]

> 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.

Do you think they're less competent in Roman transcription than we are
in Hebrew script?
> 
> >... 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?

In a lot of cases, pdf allows people to use whatever applications they
like and easily produce an output that anyone can read. I personally
don't like MS-Word for political reasons. Granted, I'm comfortable
producing an e-mail in Unicode or a plain text file, but to a lot of
people information exchange means sending a Word doc (because everyone
uses it, and it's the standard, you know). Let me give you an example of
how this sort of thing works. I work as a very small cog in one of the
largest public research funding machines in the U.S., perhaps in the
world. When applications are reviewed by peer scientists, the results
are published as a pdf summary. The reviewers may submit their critiques
as Word docs or as plain text files. The interface will allow them to
use Unicode Greek symbols in Word docs, but it will only take ASCII
encoded plain text. (Personally, I think the plain text option is just
so they can't be accused of requiring reviewers to use Word. They don't
really expect anyone to do anything with it.) Similarly, I think most
end users, given the choice, would transfer information as an attached
Word doc. Providing pdf as an option allows them to continue using the
only word processor they know and easily produce media that others can
handle. Aside from e-mail (and even then, most people use html by
default), I don't think most people know what to do with plain text. Pdf
is a natural quick output that allows everyone to use their preferred
method for producing documents.
> 
[snipped]
> 
> 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.

What kind of text do you suppose this scholar is sending me? An
inscription that no one has seen before? Unless we're talking about
quoting Israeli Hebrew (which isn't even the issue here), whatever is
sent will probably be published material that I can get from other
sources. For this reason, people rarely send whole texts to begin with.
You just assume the other person has access to it (and in most cases,
you're right).
> 
> >[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?

Only if you think communication is an individual enterprise. For myself
personally, the issue would be mostly that there are good resources
available that do not work with Unicode. It's nothing you can add to
Unicode. It's a question of software development. (And with the
particular example I have in mind, the developers have already concluded
that Unicode doesn't meet all their needs, even those who originally set
out to make the software work with Unicode.) But my argument here was
not that there are problems--only that people perceive there to be
problems. And if they don't think Unicode meets their needs, they're not
going to use it, and if they're not going to use it, communicating with
them still requires using other methods. You can fly around the world on
your own. But I hope you don't really think communication is a
unilateral thing. Maybe you can write off the people who don't play
along, but don't fuss when Microsoft does the same thing.

[snipped]

> But I thought 
> there was a 
> Unicode version of TeX now; no reason for that to produce 
> worse Hebrew 
> output than the legacy one.

Actually, the group that's developing Omega/Lambda is what I was talking
about above. They set out to produce a Unicode version, but they've
decided that Unicode won't meet all their needs.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics