Re: unicode Digest V4 #3

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 14:50:39 EST

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

    "Peter Kirk" <> wrote:
    > May I remind you of the following, my reply to Charles, on this list
    > this today:
    > > Not a good idea: the Nogai and Khakass languages appear to have used
    > > gha/oi and "i with lower right hook" according to
    > > and
    > > .

    I remember it: you state the distinction between gha/oi and i with lower
    right hook. But I thought it had nothing in common with the actual
    distinctions in Azeri (keep out the Gua/oi letter which is a variant of g).
    We are discussing here about the distinction between the Latin soft sign (b
    with top serifs) and the Latin i with lower right hook, no ?

    I do agree that we have a distinction between them, but that it could be
    possible to represent this distinction with a dotless i and a diacritic like
    the combining retroflex hook below.

    The "retroflex" term would be misleading here, but do we have a better
    "unified" term to designate it? After all we also have the same diacritic
    used to designate a French tréma, an English diaeresis, a German umlaut, a
    Cyrillic vowel inflexion, and a Greek koronis which all have distinct
    functions but are encoded the same or considered canonically equivalent...
    Same idea for the existing unification of the Greek tonos and the Latin
    accute accent...

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 15:33:40 EST