Re: Umlaut and Tréma, was: Variation sele ctors and vowel marks

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Wed Jul 14 2004 - 16:47:56 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Umlaut and Tréma, was: Variation sele ctors and vowel marks"

    On 14/07/2004 21:18, Doug Ewell wrote:

    > ...
    >Peter apparently didn't read the section I quoted from N2819 about CGJ
    >not causing normalization problems.

    I did read it, but it didn't deal with the issue I was concerned about,
    of multiple combining marks. And I was concerned about that issue
    because that was the major concern expressed in the earlier discussion
    on variation selectors, and presented as the decisive reason why
    variation selectors cannot be used with combining marks.

    If CGJ can be used with combining marks in situations where (as far as
    we know) there is in fact no problem with multiple combining marks, what
    is to stop variation selectors being used in the same situations? One
    such situation is Holam Male which never takes an additional combining
    mark*. So why can't we represent it as <VAV, HOLAM, variation selector>?
    After all in practice there is no normalisation problem with this. (By
    the way, I am proposing as one option <VAV, variation selector, HOLAM>,
    but that has been opposed on the debatable grounds that what changes is
    not the VAV but the HOLAM - the best description is that the whole
    grapheme cluster changes.)

    (* There is a small problem with the pseudo-Holam Male in the name of
    God which can take other combining marks, but there may be other
    solutions to this one.)

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 14 2004 - 16:49:37 CDT