Re: Vesta and new Java update for Mac

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> 
> java -jar -d32 -XstartOnFirstThread
> Vesta.app/Contents/Resources/Java/vesta.jar
> 
> by hand works fine, as Arno noted some time ago.
>  But I can hardly recommend that 

Well, it's good enough for me and easier than trying to figure out how to
run the command line with scripts that are presumably buried somewhere deep
in the innards of Vesta.  A small modification to your command though, which
should work on systems where Vesta.app is installed in the default location:

java -jar -d32 -XstartOnFirstThread \
/Applications/Vesta.app/Contents/Resources/Java/vesta.jar

and needless to say that this has to be all on one line.

All the best,

Christian

--

-- 
  Christian Wittern
  Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University
  47 Higashiogura-cho, Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8265, JAPAN

Re: Vesta and new Java update for Mac

> Well, it's good enough for me and easier than trying to figure out how to
> run the command line with scripts that are presumably buried somewhere deep
> in the innards of Vesta.

not really. they are just in the TEI Stylesheets directory
(teitodocx, docxtotei; and roma); however, I don't recommend them for the
normal user, as they are undocumented and not robust.

>  A small modification to your command though, which
> should work on systems where Vesta.app is installed in the default location:
> 
> java -jar -d32 -XstartOnFirstThread \
> /Applications/Vesta.app/Contents/Resources/Java/vesta.jar

good, thanks for the clarification. If anyone else
needs to use Vesta now, they should feel no qualms
about following this route.
--

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz
Information, Oxford University Computing Services
Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente

Re: Vesta and new Java update for Mac

>>
>> java -jar -d32 -XstartOnFirstThread \
>> /Applications/Vesta.app/Contents/Resources/Java/vesta.jar
>
> good, thanks for the clarification. If anyone else
> needs to use Vesta now, they should feel no qualms
> about following this route.

Just a small addition: you need to set your Java preferences to Java  
5.0 (32-bit) as preferred version before running it, otherwise it will  
fail.

Elena

--
Dr Elena Pierazzo
Research Associate
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Phone: 0207-848-1949
Fax: 0207-848-2980
elena.pierazzo <at> kcl.ac.uk
www.kcl.ac.uk

Encoding Diphthongs - Characters or Morphemes?

After having read through the pertinent sections of the P5 guidelines
and the list archives, I'm having trouble deciding whether references to
diphthongs (e.g., ae, au, ei, etc.) in a Latin grammar text would be
properly encoded as characters (<c>) or morphemes (<m>).

They "smell" like character elements to me, but I am insufficiently
schooled in linguistics to judge. The content model for <c> does not
appear to limit element values to any particular length, but I'd rather
not infer too much from that.

Many thanks in advance.

Re: Encoding Diphthongs - Characters or Morphemes?

Scott (TEI-L) wrote:
> After having read through the pertinent sections of the P5 guidelines
> and the list archives, I'm having trouble deciding whether references to
> diphthongs (e.g., ae, au, ei, etc.) in a Latin grammar text would be
> properly encoded as characters (<c>) or morphemes (<m>).
> 
> They "smell" like character elements to me, but I am insufficiently
> schooled in linguistics to judge. The content model for <c> does not
> appear to limit element values to any particular length, but I'd rather
> not infer too much from that.

<c> every time for me.

diphthongs are not morphemes, they are characters. Indeed some of them 
are represented by a single Unicode character!

Re: Encoding Diphthongs - Characters or Morphemes?

Lou Burnard said:

> Indeed some of them are represented by a single 
> Unicode character!

<rant>
There are many possible answers to this question, but I don't think that this is a suitable argument for any
of them.

What is and isn't represented in unicode is largely a haphazard mishmash of bias, accident and  brute-force
normalisation. Unicode would be dreadful, if it weren't for the fact that all the alternatives are much worse.

We're currently winding up our Legal Māori Archive and really noticed the absence of a WH-LIGATURE
character. See http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Auc1911NgaM-t1-body-d4.html
</rant>

On a related note, we've been seeing what appears to be a bug in the apache java stack in relation to certain
unicode codepages (such as Linear B). See for example
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/name-003325.html Has anyone else stumbled upon / solved this
issue? 

cheers
stuart

ANN: XML Summer School in Oxford, 20-25 Sept

The XML Summer School returns this year at St Edmund Hall, Oxford from 
20th-25th September. As always, it provides high quality technical XML 
training for every level of expertise, from the Hands-on Introduction 
through to special classes devoted to XSLT, Semantic Technologies, Open 
Source Applications, Web 2.0 and Web Services. The Summer School is also 
an opportunity to experience what life is like as a student at one of 
the world's oldest Universities.

Classes are taught by some of the most renowned XML experts,
including  Eve Maler, Michael Kay, Jeni Tennison, Michael Sperberg
McQueen, Norm Walsh and Bob DuCharme.

Details are at http://www.xmlsummerschool.org/

///Peter

Re: Encoding Diphthongs - Characters or Morphemes?

Re: Encoding Diphthongs - Characters or Morphemes?

Hi Terry

You are of course absolutely right -- "diphthongs" are phonological 
units. I was making the vulgar error of confusing them with ligatured 
letter combinations like "ae" "oe" etc. which are orthographic, and 
hence better treated with <c> than <m>.

The TEI Guidelines doesn't have any elements for specific units for 
prosodic analysis of the kind you mention, though they could be added if 
anyone ever agreed on what they were. So yes, the right answer to the 
original question should have been <seg type="diphthong">

Thanks for the correction!

Lou

Terry Langendoen wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> 
> ------=_NextPart_000_0082_01CA136C.8F5F1790
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	charset="windows-1258"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> Hi Lou, I disagree -- diphthongs are phonological units, not =
> orthographic or
> morphological ones, so that the <c>, <m>, <w>, ... element hierarchy is
> irrelevant. It's probably best to treat them as segments, like other
> phonological units such as onset, coda, rhyme, mora, syllable, etc. =
> Whether
> the 'characters' =E6 and =9C are diphthongs depends, I presume, on the =
> variety
> of Latin being analyzed. In the Church Latin I've learned for choral
> performances, they're monophthongs. Terry
> 

Re: Encoding Diphthongs - Characters or Morphemes?

Stepping into the middle of it as usual...

  I usually find it easiest to distinguish between three things:

   -- diphthongs (etc.). A phonetic or phonemic unit. Not usually
        relevant to questions of text capture, unless you're
        capturing sounds.
   -- digraphs. A conventional letter combination (ligatured
        or not) which operates as a unit--a single and
        distinct character--within the semiotic (orthographic or
        phonetic/phonemic) system.
   -- ligatures. A purely formal entity.

Welsh "ll" "ch" "ff" "dd" for example are usually regarded as
   single 'letters'; I would call them digraphs, though they
   are not generally ligatured. Middle English 'ff' is also
   a digraph, is often ligatured, and is also a single letter
   (viz. capital "F"). OE ligatured 'ash' (ae) is a digraph. So are
   Latin ae/oe (I think). All of them are often conventionally
   regarded as single letters regardless of their form. How
   exactly one decides that is beyond me.

   But other ligatures (modern English "fi" for example, or
   most Greek ligatures) are  regarded as unitary only by
   printers: when bound they have no different meaning or
   function than when not bound.

   Every deep discussion of letters, glyphs, characters, etc.
   ends up giving me a headache.

pfs

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Lou Burnard wrote:

> Hi Terry
> 
> You are of course absolutely right -- "diphthongs" are phonological units. I 
> was making the vulgar error of confusing them with ligatured letter 
> combinations like "ae" "oe" etc. which are orthographic, and hence better 
> treated with <c> than <m>.
> 
> The TEI Guidelines doesn't have any elements for specific units for prosodic 
> analysis of the kind you mention, though they could be added if anyone ever 
> agreed on what they were. So yes, the right answer to the original question 
> should have been <seg type="diphthong">
> 
> Thanks for the correction!
> 
> Lou
> 
> 
> Terry Langendoen wrote:
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>> 
>> ------=_NextPart_000_0082_01CA136C.8F5F1790
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> 	charset="windows-1258"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> 
>> Hi Lou, I disagree -- diphthongs are phonological units, not =
>> orthographic or
>> morphological ones, so that the <c>, <m>, <w>, ... element hierarchy is
>> irrelevant. It's probably best to treat them as segments, like other
>> phonological units such as onset, coda, rhyme, mora, syllable, etc. =
>> Whether
>> the 'characters' =E6 and =9C are diphthongs depends, I presume, on the =
>> variety
>> of Latin being analyzed. In the Church Latin I've learned for choral
>> performances, they're monophthongs. Terry
>> 
> 
> 
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schaffner | PFSchaffner <at> umich.edu | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1205
--------------------------------------------------------------------