RE: IPA Null Consonant

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:25:23 EDT

  • Next message: Magda Danish \(Unicode\): "Does the Unix-based LYNX browser have issues diplaying UTF-16?"

    Karl Pentzlin wrote:
    > At present, Unicode has not a character which fulfills this need
    > uniquely and unanimously (as this thread shows).
    > If there was a need to include such a character into Unicode, this
    > would have happened long before (considering the many linguists here),
    > or at least nobody would have objected to the idea as it was expressed
    > in this thread.
    > Such, there seems to be *no* need for a dedicated symbol. As a
    > consequence, other symbols are sufficient and cannot be called
    > "wrong" without looking at the context of their actual usage.
    > If you want to express the concept "empty phoneme/morpheme/whatever",
    > use any symbol which is unambiguous in *your* context.
    > Use U+2205, U+2298, U+A01C or whatever. If these characters are
    > missing or ugly in your font, use U+00D8, as long as this is
    > unambiguous within *your* text. Or create an OpenType font with your
    > favourite glyph for U+0030 U+0338 if you have time and resources.
    > *Every* symbol which your readers interpret correct *is* correct.

    I agree completely!

                    /kent k

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 16:22:09 EDT