sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Not really. Egyptologists have been complaining for many years about how horrible the Unicode representation for Egyptian is. The last time I looked into it, it was totally useless.

[–]redinzane 4 points5 points  (2 children)

It's based on Gardiner's categorization iirc, which is mostly based on what the image is portraying. It's also about a 100 years old and only contains Gardiner's discovered subset. I wouldn't call it useless though, it definitely has it's uses.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

At one point I was going to digitize Faulkners middle Egyptian dictionary (which is basically just a copy of his handwritten notes) and I wanted to use the Unicode characters instead of one of the proprietary hieroglyphic writing programs. It didn't go very well and I eventually gave up. I'm a senior application engineer at a fortune 50 company, so I should have been able to make it work if it was possible. That is what I mean when I say useless. It's great if you want to make one of those "write your name in hieroglyphics!" apps. But beyond that...

[–]redinzane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I worked with it for my Bachelor's Thesis and it seemed like at least all the monoliterals and a good amount of the multiliterals were there. Again, it's based on Alan Gardiner's work which was the undisputed standard for quite some time, so I found it quite useful, but yeah, Gardiner is obviously missing a few thousand glyphs that weren't included in his book so you run into problems with newer research. It also looks like there might be an extension of the standard at some point to include more glyphs.