Re: non-IPA primary/secondary stress marks?

From: Andrew West (
Date: Wed Sep 27 2006 - 16:41:53 CST

  • Next message: saqqara: "Re: Double Aleph Mark"

    On 28/09/06, Richard Wordingham <> wrote:
    > > Some phonetic notations using bolding for the stressed syllable instead of
    > > any stress marks. Such notation cannot of course be written using plain
    > > text only.
    > As this is phonetic notation, and presumably therefore non-casing, what
    > would one lose (except possibly respect and font support) by using the likes
    > of U+1D41A MATHEMATICAL BOLD SMALL A? Such characters even have the benefit
    > of having compatibility decompositions as the plain letters. (A similar
    > trick was suggested to me for the italic letters in the Concise Oxford
    > English Dictionary's respelling system. It wouldn't work for italicised
    > letters in phonetic schemes using other scripts.)

    I would agree with Richard that the bold letters in the mathematical
    alphanumeric symbols block would be appropriate to use for such
    phonetic notation if you do need plain text representation.

    There is already good font support for the mathematical alphanumeric
    symbols block, including Code2001 (994 out of 996 characters) and
    Microsoft's own Cambria Math font (826 out of 996 characters) ... but
    I wouldn't try to use Cambria Math in Notepad if I were you !

    Unfortunately, aside from Cambria Math and some CJK-B fonts, there is
    still virtually no support for anything beyond the BMP in Vista, as
    Michael Kaplan discusses at


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 27 2006 - 16:43:17 CST