From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 07:11:41 EST
On 06/01/2004 03:16, Andrew C. West wrote:
>I agree 100% with Ken that the Unicode letters Tone Two, Five and Six were
>introduced to represent the Zhuang tones, and so they should not be hijacked for
>other uses for which their glyph shapes are not quite appropriate. If the glyph
>shape for U+0184/U+0185 is wrong for the context that Michael and Peter want to
>use this character in, then I guess that this is probably not the right
>character to use for that purpose, and they should propose a new character.
Part of the question is whether the reference glyph shapes are correct
for Zhuang. They are not correct for the only sample of this orthography
which I have seen, which suggests that the Zhuang and old Azeri letters
have the same shapes, or very nearly so. If the corrected glyph for
Zhuang is correct for Azeri, and the correct Azeri shape is acceptable
for Zhuang, then the characters can be unified safely.
Is there any way we can find out whether the Cyrillic soft sign shape
would actually have been acceptable to Zhuang readers? Were some printed
texts in fact set with standard Cyrillic glyphs for tone 6, as well as
for tones 3 and 4? The example in
http://www.worldlanguage.com/Languages/Chuang.htm, the only one I have
seen, looks more like it was set with a Cyrillic HARD sign.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 08:04:19 EST