From: Antoine Leca (Antoine10646@leca-marti.org)
Date: Thu Jun 30 2005 - 10:23:05 CDT
On Thursday, June 30th, 2005 14:00Z Chris Harvey wrote:
> Or is having one “letter” in two scripts unadvisable.
> The Heiltsuk language uses a lowercase Greek lamda ‘λ’ for the [dl]
> sound, however its capital is an upside-down Latin Y (proposal in the
> works). My question here is whether there needs to be a new Latin
> lowercase lamda to pair with the soon-to-be-proposed Latin capital
> Lamda. I would think that this is similar to the epsilon ‘ε’, which
> has both a Greek and Latin codepoint. Or is it good enough to use the
> Greek lamda U+03BB here.
That is reminding me about a related issue I was never able to deal with
correctly (in big part because I did not know well enough about U+028E; and
particularly because all the special Latin letters for IPA are marked for
their uses in The Unicode Standard, *BUT* the Greek ones are not ¦-( ).
As far as I understand, this same lowercase Greek lamda ‘λ’ cound used by
phonologists; similarly, there are uses of lowercase Greek beta ‘β’, theta
‘θ’ and chi ‘χ’, and to a wide extent.
Is it correct? (I mean yes, because that is what
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0250.pdf says about that ;-)).
If yes, this would mean that IPA (which is probably widely used than the
languages Chris is dealing with, without any pun intended) would span
various scripts, which then shown that it would be perfectly OK to write a
"language" with symbols coming from various scripts (and in fact this is
obviously allowed, just thinking about Japanese).
Am I mixing apples and oranges here?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 10:24:07 CDT