Re: Dotless J with stroke.

From: Andreas Stötzner (
Date: Tue Dec 11 2007 - 08:58:19 CST

  • Next message: David Starner: "Re: Dotless J with stroke."

    Am 07.12.2007 um 18:15 schrieb John Hudson:

    > Andreas Stötzner wrote:
    >> 2. 025F is admittedly the basis for 0284, its top part being defined
    >> as
    >> a “hook” but NOT as an “ascender”. “Hook” is a certain element which
    >> occurs a couple of times in this range. So we are entitled to suppose
    >> that all IPA’s hooks (blue cells, see att.) should match each other
    >> for coherence. If than 0260, 029B and 02A0 feature hooks definitely
    >> different from full-height crooked ascenders (e.g. 0253) than there
    >> is no reason for dealing differently with 0284 in that respect.
    > But you are presuming that the names define the forms, but the IPA
    > names were developed after the fact, to describe forms already in use.
    > The character encoded as U+0284 has always had the form of a barred
    > esh, originally made by inverting a hooked f. As far as I'm concerned,
    > the name is irrelevant.
    > Further, the problem I find with your proposed form is that it defies
    > a natural stroke construction. Even given the artificial nature of
    > many IPA inventions, the basic test of writing is whether it can be
    > written, and how it is most naturally written. I think you have
    > misanalysed the construction of the 'hooktop barred dotless j' and
    > other hook letters, because the distinction between hook forms is not
    > between ascending and non-ascending letters but between hooks flowing
    > into or out of main vertical stems (as in b-hook, d-hook, but also
    > p-hook and, yes, this dotless j-hook) and hooks attached to other
    > features of the letter (as in c-hook). In the dotless j, you have a
    > main vertical stem, and any treatment of the hook other than flowing
    > into that stem breaks the natural stroke pattern of the written form.
    > John Hudson

    I see the point but still wonder why then a character which is a BARRED
    ESH by intention gets nicknamed (disnamed?) “SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J
    WITH STROKE AND HOOK” (which is a formidable glypsism).
    Would we accept a naming “LATIN SMALL LETTER BARRED LONG S” for what we
    commonly know as being the Latin f ? That’s it.

    It’s splendid if we folks know it better, but from a technical standard
    I do expect avoiding of such oddities. It’s surely not enough to just
    claim a character/glyph-distinction. There must be a traceable

    with regards,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 09:03:35 CST