(17-09-2017, 10:19 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'll write Voynich script in square brackets [] and sounds in slashes //.
...
I like this. Good idea. But could we possibly use slashes for shapes and % signs (which have a mnemonic "o" in them for the shape of the mouth) or something along those lines (I don't care what as long as it's readable and easy to remember) instead of square brackets? Throughout the publishing industry, square brackets are used for author commentary to distinguish it from whatever quotes they are commenting upon. It would be good to keep the square brackets for this purpose.
But... I like the idea of using delimiters to distinguish between shape and sound. We need something like that so we don't have to keep specifying it in words.
(17-09-2017, 10:19 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'll write Voynich script in square brackets [] and sounds in slashes //.
Emma, I've been giving this some more thought, because it's a good idea. What do you think of this, as a proposal...
What if we use angle or curly brackets for Voynich glyphs/shapes {qo} and sounds in slashes (since that's a convention that already exists)?
<ch> or {ch} - Voynich glyph shapes (sound not necessarily implied), most fonts have one or the other
/o/ - Voynich sounds (since slashes are already a familiar convention in linguistics for phonemes)
[Editorial statement] - Commentary on other people's work (continue using the long-standing convention in the academic field and the publishing industry for commentary)
I'm not looking to establish a standard. I'm just saying what I do.
I intend to continue to put Voynich transliteration in square brackets. Readers will just have to figure out that I'm not making an editorial comment in Voynichese...
You're free to do whatever you think best.
(19-09-2017, 12:03 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not looking to establish a standard. I'm just saying what I do.
I intend to continue to put Voynich transliteration in square brackets. Readers will just have to figure out that I'm not making an editorial comment in Voynichese...
You're free to do whatever you think best.
Ah, I was hoping we could agree on a convention for the forum because it really is tedious to keep clarifying whether one means sound or shape and we've had some recent confusion about it.
I'm going to use angle brackets (at least it's in the same family of shapes as your square brackets) and leave square brackets for commentary, just so people know what I mean when I use them in future posts.
<voynich shape>
/voynich sound/
Since I glanced at your website Emma, beginning of this year, I immediately was convinced of the practical use of your [eva between brackets] and am using it ever since myself. It is much easier than throwing the EVA-fonttype on it ! Since this is overall a man dominated community and I feel very reluctant to use it, this is the first time I can really use that smilie
(just for fun, nothing intended) in a posting.
I used to write EVA within <> brackets but I find that websites often misinterpret them and delete whatever lies between.
(How many women are active in Voynich research today? I can name half a dozen at a stretch, though at least with Elizebeth Friedman and Mary D'Imperio we have a pedigree.)
Note: this thread was split off from You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view..
I'm okay with the square brackets, since it will be clear from context what is meant. But there won't be any confusion if anyone prefers to use other brackets.
The matter of diversity within Voynich researchers is interesting as well. I think about three currently active members are not white men over 30...
I'd point out that in my head I'm still under 30..
Can I ask that we don't deviate from the standard of // for phenomes, as that is universal.
Also, the <> indicate comments in the interlinear transcription files. We shouldn't deviate from the standards established in Eva.
(19-09-2017, 07:37 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'd point out that in my head I'm still under 30..
Can I ask that we don't deviate from the standard of // for phenomes, as that is universal.
Also, the <> indicate comments in the interlinear transcription files. We shouldn't deviate from the standards established in Eva.
I'm perfectly happy with // for phonemes.
I can see Emma's point about the angle brackets being lost on websites (they're interpreted as HTML tags).
I'm not sure what I'll do for VMS shapes but I'm not thrilled about using square brackets because of the conflict with academic and publishing-industry standards. Maybe a pipe symbol. Pretty much every font has it and it's right next to the square brackets and you only have to find one key rather than two (similar to the angle brackets on sounds). |VMS glyph shape| /VMS sound/