RE: Bantu click letters

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 15:07:09 CDT

  • Next message: "Re: Bantu click letters"

    At 12:50 -0700 2004-06-10, Asmus Freytag wrote:

    >That's a statement, not an argument. Nor does it address my
    >contention that the phonetic extensions (all of them) that are
    >styled Latin characters are in fact equivalent to mathematical usage
    >in that in both cases you have a letter form that carries specific
    >semantics based on what otherwise would be font style.

    "Style" per se is applied to Mathematical characters, regularly, and
    meaningfully. Just because "script" is part of the name of U+0261
    does not mean that "style" as in HTML markup is what makes it look
    like that; that's just not the case, and you can't read that much
    into the name. It is for the same reason that I chose the name
    "script" when ***I*** named the voiced palatoalveolar click. I
    recognized its shape as similar to some forms of script Q. There are
    other forms of script Q. I did not consider it to be "styled" in the
    same way.

    By the way, I *made* the glyph out of U+0541 ARMENIAN LETTER JA, andd
    it looks a lot more like that than a script Q, so PLEEEAASE let's not
    jump overboard on a crusade to unify this character with a
    mathematical character, OK? To do so would be really very silly.

    >>I disagree. Leave the math characters, please, to the math fonts.
    >>For instance, the flowery style we use now for the math block is
    >>waaaay to italic for harmonization with the use of the character in
    >>a phonetic context.
    >This is a glyphic argument that doesn't hold water. The font you use
    >is well within the range of 'script' fonts that can be used for
    >mathematical use. In fact our font is not even the best script font
    >of that purpose.

    I'm aware of that; I still do not think we should start encouraging
    linguists to go off into the mathematical characters and press them
    into service for phonetics. Letters are letters.

    >There is nothing magically different about mathematical usage.
    >Mathematicians will be happy to use any of the existing phonetic
    >letters if and when the fancy strikes them. Now that Unicode is
    >widespread I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't any
    >mathematicians already spelunking...

    Mathematicians can do what they like.

    >That's an argument of convenience. The BMP will be full at some
    >point in the very near future, and then there will be no choice.
    >Opening the door for a historic extension makes a more sense than
    >for a commonly used modern orthography.

    There is no value to unifying this with the maths character just
    because *I* named it that way for reasons which you misconstrue.

    >>I will be perfectly happy to rename the character LATIN LETTER
    >>VOICED PALATOAVEOLAR CLICK. It doesn't have an upper case property
    >That's just hiding the issue.

    No, it's not. There is nothing particularly Q-like about the
    character in question; it's more JA-like anyway. It was a superficial
    identification I made; had I simply named it VOICED PALATOAVEOLAR
    CLICK, we would probably not be having this conversation.

    >>In any case -- and I think this is the precedent I am looking for
    >>-- this is a "script" capital Q in the same way that U+0261 is a
    >>script g. It is **not** unified with U+210A SCRIPT SMALL G.
    >It's not a precedent, since the use of the word 'script' has
    >different meaning in both cases.

    No, it doesn't. Your mathematical "script" has a meaning which is
    different from the one which applies to the IPA [g] and from the one
    I had in mind when I named the character.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 15:12:05 CDT