From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 08:30:18 EST
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
>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
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 09:15:21 EST