From: Jon Hanna (jon@hackcraft.net)
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 - 10:14:29 EST
Quoting Marion Gunn <mgunn@egt.ie>:
> Scríobh Radovan Garabik <garabik@melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk>:
> >
> >Almost all languages using latin script. They use "i" with dot above,
> >but not "ı" without. Turkish is the (almost) only language that has both
> :-)
> >...
>
> Irish in Roman script is written i with dot above, Irish in traditional
> script is written i without dot above. The current flooding of our local
> advertising and publishing markets by various non-native uncial fonts to
> write our language goes against tradition in imposing on us that unwanted
> dot. Is there any way at all that using Unicode can help support our
> tradition?
> mg
The dot in the Latin lower-case letter i is not a diacritical though; there is
no diacritical in "icicle" or on the i in "bord gáis" (it is in
Turkish, hence the distinction between i with and without dots for both capital
and lower-case letters).
The matter of pseudo-Irish script is a matter of glyph shape and outside of the
scope of Unicode to amend.
Even if Unicode considered the distinction to be significant it would still not
be possible for Unicode to prevent poor æsthetic decisions such as this, any
more than it can prevent cheesy back-to-front mock-Cyrillic R's in "The Hunt
for Red October" or my bad handwriting.
I agree with you that the pseudo-Irish script is unsightly, and i is not the
most abused, though it does run the risk of being confused with í. However I
suspect that a large number are not "non-native", but were in fact created
here.
-- Jon Hanna <http://www.hackcraft.net/> "…it has been truly said that hackers have even more words for equipment failures than Yiddish has for obnoxious people." - jargon.txt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 16 2004 - 10:54:09 EST