From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jun 13 2006 - 05:01:10 CDT
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 * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 13 2006 - 05:21:14 CDT