From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 16:57:43 EDT
On 24/07/2003 12:10, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>Of course, one of the nasty details in all these suggestions is that, if we
>do start using CGJ in the way suggested and also get a new character RIGHT
>METEG (for which we need to dream up an appropriate combining class -- pick
>a number from 1 to 199!),...
I'll narrow the field a bit. As right meteg should appear to the right
of sheva and every other low vowel and cantillation mark, its combining
class should be less than 10.
>... then we need to consider what the significance
>(if any) will be of the distinctions between (e.g.)
>QAMETS + RIGHT METEG
>QAMETS + CGJ + RIGHT METEG
>RIGHT METEG + QAMETS
>RIGHT METEG + CGJ + QAMETS
>Of course, we'll probably just disregard RIGHT METEG + (CGJ + ) QAMETS +
>(CGJ + ) METEG and variations thereof as just sequences with no linguistic
>meaning (i.e. misspellings).
My first impression would be this:
1. right meteg + qamets would be normal, and canonical order.
2. qamets + right meteg would be canonically equivalent to 1 and so
should be displayed the same.
3. right meteg + CGJ + qamets should be displayed the same as 1.
4. qamets + CGJ + right meteg should be considered a spelling error, or
perhaps be displayed the same as 6.
5. meteg + qamets would be canonically equivalent to 6 and so should be
displayed the same.
6. qamets + meteg would be normal, and canonical order.
7. meteg + CGJ + qamets should either be considered a spelling error, or
be displayed the same as 1.
8. qamets + CGJ + meteg should be displayed the same as 6.
But then if this use of CGJ is accepted, right meteg could be encoded
regularly as 7 and the special right meteg character would be redundant.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 17:38:29 EDT