RE: (SC2WG2.609) New contribution N2705

From: Ernest Cline (
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 14:33:30 EST

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

    > [Original Message]
    > From: Deborah W. Anderson <>
    > The subscripted letters e/a/o are now adopted by many authors, and
    > appear, for example, in the _Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture_, ed.
    > by J. P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams (London and Chicago: Fitzroy
    > Dearborn,1997). This tome also uses the h with a subscript x, which has
    > also now been adopted by two new handbooks on Indo-European. (I will
    > track them down for examples.)

    For myself, the examples already given convinced me about a, e, and o,
    altho the reference you provided in this post, strengthened the case for
    them in my opinion. I didn't think that subscript x would prove to be a
    problem, and the sources given here should prove sufficient.

    However, I must note, that no additional support for subscript / was
    referenced by you, and that is in my opinion the weakest of the
    five proposed characters. The slightly contradictory nature of
    the two examples in the proposal made me wonder whether it was
    just an author's personal shortcut and unless I'm totally misinterpreting
    the symbology here, the online reference you provided strengthens
    that belief. Or is there some difference between what was meant by
    "h [1] [/] [3]" and what is represented by "( h[1] | h[3] )"? If not, it
    like the authors of those two examples merely hit upon almost the
    same personal shortcut, one that could become a standard, but
    without additional examples, I'm not willing to concede that it is
    a standard notation.

    (Using [] to indicate a subscripted glyph in the above example.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 15:22:37 EST