From: Richard Wordingham (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jun 13 2006 - 16:30:45 CDT
Karl Pentzlin wrote on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 at 12:34 PM
> Am Dienstag, 13. Juni 2006 um 09:33 schrieb Michael Everson:
>ME> At 01:48 +0200 2006-06-13, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
>>> ... I would propose a single "triple diacritic"
>>> COMBINING TRIPLE BREVE BELOW ...
> ME> Is it productive, or just used with sch in German?
> At this time, I only know of sch.
We've now seen the Greek examples. In general, I would expect it to have
the same behaviour as *COMBINING TRIPLE INVERTED BREVE ABOVE. I've found an
example of that used to illustrate French liaison (in Bodmer's 'Loom of
Language'). Delimiting the letters associated by the 'inverted breve' with
'(...)', we have examples such as:
o(n e)(n a) pour so(n a)rgent.
This is clearly productive usage. I was disappointed when I dug out this
example I had partly remembered - I had though that the slurs (as I think of
them) were below as in the 'sch' case.
I has been going to suggest that instead of encoding <s, COMBINING TRIPLE
BREVE BELOW, c, h>, we should consider interpreting <s, U+035C COMBINING
DOUBLE BREVE BELOW, c, U+035C, h> as specifying the desired form. It seems
that it is already spoken for - unless someone can successfully argue that
they are glyph variants. The attraction for *encoding* is that it would
have enabled arbitrarily long groups of letters to be grouped together
without using bracketing schemes analogous to <U+1D177 MUSICAL SYMBOL BEGIN
SLUR ... U+1D178 MUSICAL SYMBOL END SLUR>. I'm not certain that this pair
can't be used - does it matter whether the slur is above or below?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 13 2006 - 17:46:32 CDT