Re: Ogonek vs. hook below (Re: Some questions about Latin diacritics)

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Tue Jun 13 2006 - 05:01:10 CDT

  • Next message: Karl Pentzlin: "Re: Ogonek vs. hook below (Re: Some questions about Latin diacritics)"

    At 10:53 +0200 2006-06-13, Karl Pentzlin wrote:

    >In that document, the hook(s) in fact appear to be not connected to
    >the base letter (see the attached enlarged "Zwei Haken.png"), thus
    >being different from the ogonek proper.

    Yes, I don't think it's an ogonek. Ogoneks always
    are attached to the base character.

    >The hook below is common in German dialect writing system and is
    >called "Haken" (hook) or "Häkchen" (little hook).
    >Other instances show a connected form. See the attached scan
    >"Haken.png" taken from:
    >Wolfgang Lindow et al., Niederdeutsche Grammatik, Leer 1998, p.40
    >where you see a more ogonek-like form.

    Haken.png has an Ogonek, but I don't think
    Zwei_Haken.png has ogoneks at all. Indeed, if we
    were to encode a double Ogonek, you would have to
    expect it to be drawn attached to the base

    >In my personal opinion, the hook below is no more different from the
    >ogonek than a Polish kreska from a French accent aigu, and therefore
    >can be unified. Maybe I am wrong.

    I disagree. To me, it looks like a subscripted
    dotless i, and doubled in the second instance.

    Michael Everson *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 13 2006 - 05:21:14 CDT