Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1

From: Patrick Andries (patrick.andries@xcential.com)
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 16:43:37 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1"
    Страхиња Радић a écrit : 
    Дана 2005.05.23 22:17, Kenneth Whistler је написао:
  
    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,
    This one is easy : compatibility with important prexisting 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? And why there is no
dotless i in Cyrillic? It is used in some Serbo-slavic texts from from the XIX
century.
    To represent which letter ? (I think an author wanted to introduce a dotless i for the Initial (K)HER(U), but I think this was a private initiative)
    	And nobody answered my other questions:

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

	2) What does ``LATINATE'' mean and in what language?
    Of latin origin, in English. It is a late Croatian form (according to Heinz Miklas) which calls it a replacement form : «Hier gemeint ist die späte kroatische Ersatzform, die der lateinischen Form M entspricht.». I don't know if Ersatzform would mean this is a purely glyphic variant.
    

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

    
I would also like to know (for French translation purposes).
    

    
  
    	4) Why ``SMALL LETTER IOTATED SMALL YUS'' instead of ``SMALL LETTER
IOTIFIED LITTLE YUS'', which in my opinion would be more compatible with the
Cyrillic counterpart?
  
    

    
I also had noticed, I hoped the new form is better in English but I
agree that this means consistency is not preserved.
    

    
P. A.
    

    




    



    

    
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 
: Tue May 31 2005 - 16:44:27 CDT