From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Mar 06 2004 - 08:42:18 EST
On 06/03/2004 04:37, D. Starner wrote:
>Peter Kirk <email@example.com> writes:
>>do we take U and V as different presentation forms of one character?
>>Should one of them be only in the PUA? Surely not.
>But there are documents that use u and v, like those referring
>to vultures. As far as I can tell, there are no documents that
>use both of these ligated th's, so the cases aren't parallel.
There are also documents that use both kaf and keheh as they are
distinct characters in some languages. On 27th January Jonathan Kew
wrote to the Unicode bidi list:
> Sindhi *does* have a distinction between two "kaf" characters, as it
> writes unaspirated /k/ and aspirated /kh/ with distinct characters
> (not using a digraph for /kh/, as Urdu does). The plain /k/ is written
> with a "swash kaf" form (see U+06AA), while /kh/ is written with a
> "keheh" form (U+06A9). So there is a clear need for a plain-text
> distinction between two "kaf" letters in Sindhi.
Now I know that "swash kaf" is not the same as kaf, so the situation is
not as simple as I had remembered. But the point remains that letters
which seem to be graphical variants in one language may in fact be
distinct letters in another language. That is one good reason to avoid
hasty unification of characters. I don't think it applies to your
various th ligatures, but then there could well be a dictionary out
there somewhere which uses one of your supposedly equivalent ligatures
for the voiced th and another one for the unvoiced th.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 06 2004 - 09:16:42 EST