Re: Fwd: Re: (SC2WG2.609) New contribution N2705

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 07:16:58 EST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Fwd: Re: (SC2WG2.609) New contribution N2705"

    On 18/02/2004 02:49, Michael Everson wrote:

    > At 18:10 -0800 2004-02-17, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
    >> > It is too late for that, Ken. Sorry. Indo-Europeanists have
    >>> requirements just as real as Uralicists did. And having some
    >>> subscripts available but not the rest isn't acceptable. Why would it
    >>> be?
    >> Because the concept of "the rest" is ill-defined.
    > See N2705? But there's a schwa too; Debbie is getting the reference
    > but didn't have it before the last UTC.

    If I find references (e.g. the ones Ken and I have already given) with
    the rest of the Latin alphabet and other characters used as subscripts
    in linguistic works, would you add these to your proposal as well? If
    "yes", you are accepting that "the rest" is open-ended. If "no", what
    makes your subscripts different from and more encodable than my
    subscripts? Ernest has given a reasonable criterion, but one which rules
    out x and /. Do you have an alternative criterion?

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 07:58:47 EST