From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 15:05:23 EST
From: "Peter Kirk" <email@example.com>
> On 05/01/2004 10:17, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> >>Can we leave OI/gha out of this? ...
> >Certainly, but that's not me who suggested to unify the "i with bottom
> >hook" as a variant of "oi/gha". In fact if you read what I read, I have
> >exactly said the opposite, because I have always thought that "oi/gha"
> >was a variant of "g" and not of "i"...
> Just for clarification, I didn't either. The first message in which the
> concept was mentioned was Philippe saying that he did not suggest this.
Also because this message was replying to a possibly confusing message you
wrote in which both letters were mixed in the same sentence. My first
message about it was a reply to say that this was confusive and that many
people would be confused if we just kept the name "oi" as normative and
"gha" as only informative (as Michael wanted to demonstrate to us...) So no,
there was never a confusion in my mind even before the thread started as I
had always felt the letter "gha" being a "g" variant, despite of its
deceptive glyph-related normative "oi" name.
I don't know why I always need to reexplain my sentences. If this is because
English is not my native language, I'm sorry about this. Please read my
messages by first considering the precautions I take the time to include,
instead of just quoting only 1 of my sentences which may then appear
confusive if taken out of his effective context, and arguing it is wrong or
bad. Yes it can appear bad or wrong, but not in its initial context.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 15:37:23 EST