Re: ogonek vs. retroflex hook

Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 18:21:33 EST

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: ogonek vs. retroflex hook"

    Kenneth Whistler <> wrote on 04/04/2003 05:09:25 PM:

    > > There is another convention, admittedly far less widespread: cedilla.

    > I don't think this is an accepted convention.

    No, not very widespread.

    > I think those instances where you find a
    > linguist publishing using vowels with cedilla for *nasalization*
    > are results of either: a. confusion by the user regarding the
    > direction of the hooks, or b. symbol substitution when using a
    > font that had the cedilla forms but not the ogoneks.

    Entirely possible. I have certainly seen cases of obvious symbol
    substitution for various things.

    > Using U+0328.


    > Note that the example you posted also had an h-ogonek, so the
    > usage is not limited to vowels, per se.


    > (Although that particular
    > entity itself is a little bizarre, since you cannot really
    > nasalize a voiceless glottal fricative.

    Then you'd be even more surprised at c-ogonek. (IJAL 65, p. 331.)

    - Peter

    Peter Constable

    Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    Tel: +1 972 708 7485

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 19:03:09 EST