Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 15:42:52 CDT

  • Next message: Rick McGowan: "New Version of UTS #22 Released"

    At 21:14 +0200 2005-05-31, ڕ wrote:
    > 2005.05.23 22:17, Kenneth Whistler :
    >> The burden of proof at this point would be for demonstrating that
    >> a digraphic representation is insufficient, so that a separate
    >> Glagolitic digraph for this would need to be added to the standard.
    > By using this kind of reasoning, we would end up asking why the heck
    >was ``fi'' or ``ffi'' encoded when these two can be expressed with their
    >corresponding atoms,

    And should be. Those were encoded for
    compatibility with a number of pre-Unicode
    character sets.

    >or, more closer to what I asked, why the
    >Cyrillic ``yeriy'' was encoded as a standalone
    >character, when it could be happily represented
    >with a soft sign + ``deseteric'' (dotless) i?

    Cyrillic "yeriy" was also encoded as a unitary
    character because in modern (especially Russian)
    information processing it has always been
    considered one. (Some old Cyrillic yers and i's
    of varyous compositions are not precomposed.)

    >And why there is no dotless i in Cyrillic?

    Is one needed? Is one attested?

    >It is used in some Serbo-slavic texts from from the XIX century.

    Ah. Can you supply evidence? And does it contrast
    with dotted i? (Irish texts in Gaelic script use
    an i without a dot, but it is not the "Turkic
    dotless i", it's just a glyph variant of i.

    > And nobody answered my other questions:

    I forwarded them to Professor Cleminson who is on holiday.

    > 1) Why the variant characters were encoded? Ex: ``LATINATE MYSLITE'' is
    >a variant of ``MYSLITE'', which should be expressed font-wise, NOT

    Professor Cleminson (and/or his colleagues) had
    evidence of its contrastive use, I believe. I do
    not have this material to hand.

    > 2) What does ``LATINATE'' mean and in what language?

    It is English and means "Latin-like". It refers
    to the shape of the character, which looks not
    like Glagolitic MYSLITE but like Latin M.

    > 3) Why ``SHTAPIC'' and not ``PALOCHKA'' or ``STICK''? And could someone
    >explain to me what is the use of this character?

    It's used in the Balkans, not in Russia, so a
    Balkan Slavic name was used. It is some sort of
    soft sign if I recall.

    >IOTIFIED LITTLE YUS'', which in my opinion would be more compatible with the
    >Cyrillic counterpart?

    No particular reason I can remember. BIG/LITTLE,
    and BIG/SMALL, both work in English. I did insist
    on IOTATED because that is a "reasonable" English
    word, and "IOTIFIED" is very bad terminology

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 31 2005 - 15:43:41 CDT