From: Andreas Stötzner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Dec 11 2007 - 08:58:19 CST
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
>> 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 esh, originally made by inverting a hooked f. As far as I'm concerned,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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 09:03:35 CST