Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1

From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 17:44:14 CDT

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1"

    At 22:47 +0200 2005-05-31, ڕ wrote:
    > > > 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.
    >
    >Is it really (Old) Slavic?

    No, I don't think so.

    >``'' is a modern Serbian and Croatian word
    >(BTW, it should read ``SHTAPITCH'', with
    >``TSHE'', not ``TSE'' at the end), but I doubt
    >it is Old Slavic.

    There is no good way of writing Croatian in Latin
    without diacritics. C, C-ACUTE, and C-CARON are
    all problematic, and it doesn't matter anyway.
    The name can't be changed now.

    >And again, if ``SHTAPIC'' is a soft sign, hen it
    >is another example of variant font-only forms
    >encoded in Unicode. At least it reminds me of
    >square Glagolitic soft sign.

    Just because it is a way of representing a
    palatalization mark, does not mean that it is a
    glyph variant of soft sign. It may have a
    different origin.

    -- 
    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 31 2005 - 17:46:15 CDT