From: Thomas Widmann (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 28 2004 - 17:54:40 EST
"Mark E. Shoulson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I was playing around with making my very own IPA keyboard, and I
> discovered to my surprise that Unicode has no Latin Small Theta (for
> IPA). We have LATIN SMALL LETTER ALPHA (U+0251), LATIN SMALL LETTER
> GAMMA (U+0263), LATIN SMALL LETTER EPSILON (U+052B, though that's
> its old name), LATIN SMALL LETTER IOTA (U+0269), LATIN SMALL LETTER
> UPSILON (U+028A), LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (U+0278), but no Latin
> Theta or Beta (bilabial fricative). That can't be right. If IPA
> deserves Latin versions of αγειυφ, then it needs them for βθ too.
Funny that you should post this today, since I had exactly the same
discussion earlier today with a colleague with whom I was designing a
phonetics editor (at Collins Dictionaries).
Furthermore, it would have been nice if there had been a LATIN SMALL
LETTER NONSCRIPT A (preferably with a better name), since for
phonetics purposes it is disastrous if the font used happens to use a
script-style LATIN SMALL LETTER A that looks too close to LATIN SMALL
LETTER ALPHA. Of course, one might argue that one should only use
specialised fonts for phonetics anyway, but it is an added complexity.
Besides, LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT G is already there -- and that
isn't really necessary if a proper font is always used.
-- Thomas Widmann email@example.com http://www.twid.bibulus.org Flat 3/2, 54 Mavisbank Gardens, Glasgow G51 1HL, Scotland, EU *** Ny gruppe om nordiske sprog: europa.linguas.germanic.nord ***
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 28 2004 - 19:36:53 EST