≤ƃõ«µ ñwgrt ≤ƒõ«µ ñgrt ƒ•Ø¬¬¬ g¨wt ƒ•¬´ g¨w ƒ•ö g¨w ƒ•Œ´ g¨w √†† Gbb ƒ†©•ù gb¨ ƒ††¨ gbb ≠†ï Gb ƒ†ƒ†ì gbgb √†∫ Gbtñw ƒ†ù¥… gb¨ ƒ∞∑ö gfn ƒ∞¢ gf ®ß gmñ ®ßÃ~ gmw ®ß¡«ª gmh. t ®ß¡ô gmh. ®ß®ßÕ gmgm ƒß« gmt ƒ∑∞öë gnf ƒ∑∞öë gnf ƒ∑∆Æ«Ω¿∂ gnwt Ω∆«¿~ gnwt ƒ∑∑í gnn ΩΩ gnwt Ω«À gnwty ƒõ gr ƒõ¡ù grh. ƒõ¡≥ grh. æ grg ƒõæ grg ƒõæ grg ƒõƒæ grg ƒõƒæ grg ƒõ« grt ƒõë gr Figure 1. The words in Gardiner’s grammar beginning with ƒ g-, expanded to plain-text strings of characters and run through a very basic sorting algorithm as proof-of-concept regarding the ordering of hieroglyphs as opposed to transliteration-based ordering. Compare this with the same list of words in Gardiner’s dictionary: ƒ¡ºü£ gh. s ƒ¡º° gh. s ƒ∏” gs ƒºÆœ»»» gsw ƒº“•π gs¨ œ∏û gs œ∏≈î gs —… gs œ…Æêñ~ gsw œ…‘ gs-pr œ…ø≤± gstñ ƒƒÆÀô ggwy √√Æ«ò~ ggwt √√ºÀ∫ Gsy ƒ–ø≤ gstñ ƒƒ«§ ggt úó…—… dñ h. r gs üº° gh. s ≥ grh. Figure 2. The words in Gardiner’s grammar beginning with ƒ g-. 12
It can be seen that there are some differences between the order in Figure 1 and Gardiner’s order in Figure 2, but note that Gardiner’s is not algorithmically derived. For instance, Gardiner orders gbb < Gb < Gbtñw < gb¨ < gbgb; according to Gardiner’s own alphabetical order one might expect Gb < gb¨ < gbb < gbgb < Gbtñw (though perhaps Gardiner is using a root-based ordering). Our results gave gb¨ < gbb < Gb < gbgb < Gbtñw, because the underlying spelling is g-b-(b-¨)-¨-ù < g-b-b-(g-b) < (g-b)-b-ï < g-b-g-b-ì < g-b-(t-ñ-w)-∫. Something else that will need to be dealt with is the question of characters with multiple readings. T019, the harpoon head of bone Ω, has two readings, gn and k. s, and it is uncertain how a decision about “primary” values will be made. Second- and third-level ordering for homophones like ƒ g and √ g is also something we have not attempted in this exercise. Nevertheless, it seems clear that a phonetic-based ordering for Egyptian hieroglyphs yields results which are more useful than binary ordering would yield. Another way of illustrating this is to choose a set of words each beginning with a different letter of the Egyptian alphabet and order that according to phonetic value and according to binary order. The use of binary order apparently transforms Egyptian alphabetical order into r, Æ, d, b, h, ¨, m, w, f, d, ñ, k. , n, sˇ, s/z, ¯ ¯ h, p, t, h. , k, g, t, y, h. Figure 3 shows the same set of words sorted in binary order. When we consulted ¯ with Egyptologists, ˘ they agreed that this order would not be useful to them. úó…—… dñ h. r gs üº° gh. s ®ß gmñ ®ß®ßÕ gmgm ®ß¡ô gmh. ®ß¡«ª gmh. t ®ßÃ~ gmw ≠†ï Gb ≤ƃõ«µ ñwgrt ≤ƒõ«µ ñgrt ≥ grh. ΩΩ gnwt Ω∆«¿~ gnwt Ω«À gnwty æ grg √†† Gbb √†∫ Gbtñw √√Æ«ò~ ggwt √√ºÀ∫ Gsy ƒõ gr ƒõë gr ƒõæ grg ƒõæ grg ƒõ¡ù grh. ƒõ¡≥ grh. ƒõƒæ grg ƒõƒæ grg ƒõ« grt ƒ†ù¥… gb¨ ƒ††¨ gbb ƒ†©•ù gb¨ ƒ†ƒ†ì gbgb ƒ•ö g¨w ƒ•Ø¬¬¬ g¨wt ƒ•¬´ g¨w ƒ•Œ´ g¨w ƒß« gmt ƒ∞¢ gf1 ƒ∞∑ö gfn ƒ∑∞öë gnf ƒ∑∞öë gnf ƒ∑∑í gnn ƒ∑∆Æ«Ω¿∂ gnwt ƒ∏” gs ƒº“•π gs¨ ƒºÆœ»»» gsw ƒ¡ºü£ gh. s ƒ¡º° gh. s ƒƒÆÀô ggwy ƒƒ«§ ggt ƒ–ø≤ gstñ œ∏û gs œ∏≈î gs œ…Æêñ~ gsw œ…‘ gs-pr œ…ø≤± gstñ —… gs Figure 3. The words in Gardiner’s grammar beginning with ƒ g-, expanded to plain-text strings of characters and sorting in binary order. 10. The UniKemet database and future expansion of the repertoire. The database containing source references for the characters encoded has been named the UniKemet database after ø¿¡ Kmt “Egypt” since we considered a name like UniHieroglyph to be too general (given Anatolian Hieroglyphs, Maya Hieroglyphs, and Míkmaq Hieroglyphs). This database provides the means for Egyptologists to work with <strong>ISO</strong>/<strong>IEC</strong> <strong>JTC1</strong>/<strong>SC2</strong>/<strong>WG2</strong> and with the Unicode Consortium to add Egyptian Hieroglyphs to the standard in future. Its structure is relatively straightforward; it contains the following fields: 13