Re: unicode Digest V4 #3

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 08:30:18 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: unicode Digest V4 #3"

    On 05/01/2004 05:04, Philippe Verdy wrote:

    > ...
    >>Not a good idea: the Nogai and Khakass languages appear to have used both
    >>gha/oi and "i with lower right hook" according to
    >> and
    >> .
    >That's a rewording of what I meant, if my sentence was not clear and
    >was not already demonstrating that "i with lower retroflex hook" is
    >distinct from "oi/gha".
    >Now with the new Peter's remark, this "i with lower retroflex hook" has
    >to be distinct from the small b/soft sign (inherited from cyrillic), even if
    >both could be considered in Azeri as being mostly glyph variants of the
    >same Azeri character.
    I would think that the issue here is whether "i with retroflex hook
    below" is a suitable description of this character. It may be a
    reasonable match for the glyph. But this is not a mark of retroflection
    (although arguably of back articulation (cf. U+0320)), and to call it
    one is probably an anachronism. There is probably no historical link
    with the retroflex hook.

    I would prefer a new character with no compatibility decomposition; or
    if there is any compatibility decomposition it should be directly to
    dotless i which is the modern equivalent.

    It seems that we do actually need two new character pairs, this one and
    also the soft sign lookalike - unless it is considered acceptable to use
    the Cyrillic characters in Latin text cf. the use of Latin Q and W in
    Cyrillic Kurdish.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 09:15:21 EST