From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 13:17:35 EST
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <email@example.com>
> On 01/05/04 08:04, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Regarding dotless-i-with hook...
> >and case mappings with each other. Both solutions maintains the
> >with Latin oi (gha) and with the latin soft sign (small b).
> Can we leave OI/gha out of this? Near as I can tell the *only*
> relevance it has to the discussion of the hookbottomed-i is that it
> happened to be mentioned in the same message once. It doesn't look,
> sound, smell, or taste like the hookbottom-i, and should in no wise be
> conflated, unified, or otherwise made to cohabit with it.
Certainly, but that's not me who suggested to unify the "i with bottom right
as a variant of "oi/gha". In fact if you read what I read, I have exactly
opposite, because I have always thought that "oi/gha" was a variant of "g"
and not of "i"...
Look at the summary of sounds with "similar" glyphs I posted early, then
this is very clear... This summary was needed because the GIF posted by
Peter was not found in the list (Peter just posted a plain-text description,
but the table he created was not usable as all the column formatting was
lost from his post...)
Instead Peter could post a URL to his interesting Azeri alphabets which
compares the transliteration schemes that occured in different reforms from
Arabic to Latin then Cyrillic then agains Latin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 14:00:29 EST