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 15:20:20 -0800

On 19/01/2004 14:36, Trevor Peterson wrote:

...

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.

It is "web work" which I am talking about, plus data which is being sent out on CDs. Some of this is fixed format material for which PDFs suitable, but a lot of it is more dynamic, hyperlinked, searchable etc etc for which PDF is not suitable. And a lot of it is data for SIL's proprietary programs, which are not necessarily for in-house use only.

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.

In Word XP, probably at the moment but no guarantees that it always will. But it probably won't look right in Internet Explorer, which doesn't support diacritics at code points which should not be diacritics.

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.

I'm not an expert on archiving, but I am assured that this is potentially a serious problem, especially when you have an archive with hundreds of languages and potentially many encodings of each. That archiving is a real problem is shown in that there is a large team involved in retyping Bibles for SIL which were printed in the 60's and 70's but for which there is no longer any usable computer-readable form.

...

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, ...

But what if the adviser wants him to use proper Hebrew in his e-mails? I'm sure he or she, the Israeli, would prefer it to any transcription.

... 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.)


What if the adviser prefers to make comments using his computer on a machine-readable version of the text? If you insist on PDF you are not giving him or her the choice.

...

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?

Probably not, but I think we might be upset if they insisted on writing English words in Hebrew characters just because they can't be bothered to use software which supports English as well as Hebrew.

...

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. ...

Understood.

... 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. ...

Well, you can produce Word docs with OpenOffice, complete with Unicode text. To be recommended perhaps only when Word format is required.

... 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? ...

Or a MS, or whatever. Or a draft of a paper she has written, in English but quoting lots of Hebrew words. Or something she found on the Internet. Or all sorts of things.

... 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. ...

Maybe. But then you probably still have to retype it.

... 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).

Don't assume I have access to anything. I'm a long way from good libraries :-(

...

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. ...

Absolutely not. I don't want the people who think the earth is flat to be left out, I want to persuade them to travel with me and the community at large. But if in the end they are not persuaded and won't get on the plane with me and the rest, that is their privilege as adults, but I don't see that I and everyone else should stay at home just because they choose to.

... 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.) ...

Be specific. The developers at Microsoft? At OpenOffice? At Mozilla? Certainly none of them. All the major software companies are moving to Unicode as fast as they can. If some small outfit has decided to give up the race, it will sadly be a matter of the weakest to the wall.

... 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, ...

This is precisely why I am putting so much effort into telling you and this list that Unicode DOES meet your needs. I am hoping that you intelligent people are able to judge what the situation really is and that Unicode is the best way for as many people as possible to communicate.

... 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.


Then they have committed organisational suicide. As is also clear from the disarray at http://omega.enstb.org/, which can't serve legal HTML pages, and the death of http://omega.cse.unsw.edu.au/. That is, if you mean that they are using something different from Unicode.



--
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