13-08-2020, 01:17 PM
Hello Vladimir,
my table is based on published transliterations, and the symbols that have been recognised by the people creating these.
It is adopting an approach that can be extended, namely grouping characters into 'families' based on generic or high-level appearance.
This makes the identification of any character a two-step approach:
- which family does it belong to?
- which family member is it.
From the existing transliterations, the answer to the first question is (of course) much more consistent, but it is also not possible to define clearly bounded families. There are always marginal cases.
There are still a great number of symbols in the MS that require a better representation in the transliteration files.
my table is based on published transliterations, and the symbols that have been recognised by the people creating these.
It is adopting an approach that can be extended, namely grouping characters into 'families' based on generic or high-level appearance.
This makes the identification of any character a two-step approach:
- which family does it belong to?
- which family member is it.
From the existing transliterations, the answer to the first question is (of course) much more consistent, but it is also not possible to define clearly bounded families. There are always marginal cases.
There are still a great number of symbols in the MS that require a better representation in the transliteration files.