Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1

From: Страхиња Радић (
Date: Tue Jun 28 2005 - 13:59:21 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Tamil sha (U+0BB6) - deprecate it?"

    Дана 2005.06.15 13:31, Michael Everson је написао:
    > >1. Glagolitic jery is not a character: it is two characters. This
    > >was the unanimous view of those who participated in the consultation
    > >process.

            And whom that may be?

    > >2. People who work with square glagolitic were insistant that the
    > >stapic (which is what they call it, hence the name) should be
    > >included, and if you look at their publications you will see that
    > >they are always careful to transcribe it as a distinct character.

            Any examples of historical use?

    > >3. Latinate myslite is necessary for encoding those texts in which
    > >it occurs together with the older form of myslite.

            Again, references...?

    Дана 2005.06.14 04:02, Doug Ewell је написао:
    > I'm glad that the lack of a GLAGOLITIC LETTER YERIY seems to be 90% of
    > Strahinya's objection to the Glagolitic encoding. I had thought his
    > opposition ran much deeper than that.

            Well, my ``opposition'' runs deeper indeed, but I am also aware of the
    policy of not allowing modifications, only additions. The addition of ``yeriy''
    is all I can ask regarding this problem.

            The system applied for transcribing Old Slavic to Latin in general
    seems very odd to me (U=both ``Ъ'' and ``У'', I=both ``Ь'' and ``И''??). So,
    instead of ``AZ'', ``BUKI'', ``VYEDI'', and so on, we have ``AZU'', ``BUKY'',
    ``VEDE'', etc. But that cannot be changed, so I don't complain about it.

    > If he can put together a decent proposal for this letter, including some
    > examples that clearly show its identity as a single letter, I'm sure it
    > would be considered on its merits.

            Every book on Old Slavic lists all the Old Cyrillic and Glagolitic
    letters and their corresponding names, including ``yeriy''. So I am very
    curious who are the people that ``participated in the consultation process''
    and are there any slavists among them.

            Again, thinking like that, supposing that deletions were allowed, we
    could remove the letter ``W'', because it can be represented with ``VV''. Or,
    the CJK part could be ``optimized'' by including only radicals and complements,
    as ``every CJK character could be represented by combining these basic

            Is the lack of Glagolitic typewriting machines with ``yeriy'' really
    the only reason this character wasn't included? Is this a joke? In my opinion,
    the very fact that I have to *prove* ``yeriy'' is a standalone character is
    surreal. Does the combination ``GLAGOLI+LJUDIJE'' has a separate name? No. But
    ``yeriy'' has, because it is a character representing a sound.

            Best regards,

    Because *freedom* matters!

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 28 2005 - 15:08:58 CDT