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

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 16:07:23 EST

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

    > >I agree. Furthermore, it seems to me that the laryngeal a, e, and o
    > >subscripts are not productive, and that it would be better to encode
    > >something named either LATIN LETTER CAPITAL H WITH SUBSCRIPT A or
    > >(better, IMHO)
    > >LATIN LETTER A-COLORED LARYNGEAL, and the same for the other two.
    > No, the letters are productive in other contexts besides IE
    > laryngeals. In particular at least the Uralicists have recently
    > written to me thanking me for proposing the subscript o because it
    > turns out they need it too.

    And I pointed out that subscript-a is used as a transcription
    for furtive patah in Hebrew. So there are sure to be more
    such instances for a, e, and o, in particular.

    It's the subscript-x and subscript-/ that I am objecting to.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 16:43:22 EST