From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 04:11:02 EST

  • Next message: Otto Stolz: "Re: LATIN LETTER N WITH DIAERESIS?"

    Thanks for the many replies, I'll comment on a few of them:

    At 05:46 PM 2/2/03 +0100, Lukas Pietsch wrote:

    >Your F725 Unknown-2, to me, looks like a German SCRIPT CAPITAL S,
    >(compare with U+2112;SCRIPT CAPITAL L). Yes, we were taught to write an
    >S like this in school. Perhaps it's used somewhere in mathematics?
    >Your F7AA Unknown-8 could then be a SCRIPT CAPITAL C.

    I wish the same font had contained a glyph for 2112, but it doesn't.
    I'm not used to think in terms of attempting to do a 'sans-serif'
    interpretation of a 'script' style. I've not been able to find any
    font that does things that way. For example, Arial Unicode MS does
    not attempt that, but gives true script shapes for 2112 and similar

    In favor of your hypothesis speaks the fact that the font duplicates
    many other "Letterlike Symbols" in its private use area, while it is
    quite good at mapping IPA and Extended Latin characters to their correct
    code points, reserving the PUA for additional precomposed or novel symbols.

    Did you (or anyone else) have a guess for F759. It can't be 013D, since that
    exists in the same font, with a more expected rendering.

    Thank you for your detailed responses. Most of them seem to be clerical
    errors on my part. I'll fix them at next occasion (not tonight, though ;-).

    There was one other remark I wanted to comment on:

    >Your combinations "with latin small letter dotless i" (e.g. F704, F731,
    >F77A) seem to be designed for use in phonetic transcriptions, and hence
    >are probably intended as IPA U+026A;LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL I

    In this font, a capital I has serifs (cross bars) to distinguish it from
    lower case letter L. You can see this in F752 and the small capital form
    would then be part of F753. That means that the vertical bar in F703 etc
    would have to be either the dotless i, or something else altogether.

    I don't have experience in phonetic transcriptions, so I couldn't spot
    a nonsense mapping, but in this case there seem issues of internal
    consistency in the set.

    >At 11:55 AM 2/2/03 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
    >I strongly suspect that your various DIGRAPHS WITH BREVE BELOW are
    >actually underties. In addition, U+F7A1 looks like a glyph variant
    >of the glyph often used in American dictionaries to represent edh,
    >though I have more often seen it with the stroke passing through both
    >legs of the "h" portion. U+F776 and U+F777 are probably also American
    >dictionary characters representing the so-called "short" and "long"
    >sounds of English "oo", though I have more often seen them without ligaturing.

    A family member, watching me prepare the charts, suggested I name them
    be a neat name for them.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 04:31:34 EST