9554RE: [GTh] Coptic Keyboarding
- Sep 2, 2010
I found the list of letters not appearing with a superlinear in Layton's Coptic on 20 Lessons (p3).
ⲁ, ⲇ, ⲉ, ⲍ, ⲏ, ⲑ, ⲓ, ⲟ, ⲩ, ⲫ, ⲭ, ⲱ never appear with their own superlinear, according to him. Now, as you point out, that does not mean that they are never part of entire bound forms that have a joining overstrokes (a different thing, grammatically) and which can be handled separately by inserting the overstroke between the characters as in with shift+a in the Askeland KB so that they appear as a single line. But then again, if you use this keyboard, freeing up keys doesn’t really make much difference in the long run.
||From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
||Behalf Of Michael Grondin
||Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 2:10 AM
||Subject: Re: [GTh] Coptic Keyboarding
||> One more thing I'm curious about. Layton (somewhere) has a list of the
||> glyphs that **never** have their own superlinear, so having the shift
||> superlinear function would not be necessary for all letters- that
||> would free up some keys, right? Or am I missing something here?
||Well, I guess I would say 'yes and no'. True, there's some letters that don't
||normally get their own superlinear stroke, but yet may need to be overlined on
||occasion. One example is Greek numbers (which the Copts used, as you know,
||and which were, of course, composed of overlined letters). Another is nomina
||sacra. Less obviously, there's those strange "names" associated with body parts
||in the Apocryphon of John, where the whole lengthy "name" is overlined.
||Still, most of the letters are rarely overlined, so the idea makes sense to me. I
||assume you're thinking of the possibility of freeing up some upper-case keys on
||the Mastronarde keyboard so that the ctrl-alt function could be eliminated?
- << Previous post in topic