Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Thu Jan 03 2008 - 08:42:41 CST

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: The Geejay"

    At 15:34 +0100 2008-01-03, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
    >Am 03.01.2008 um 14:04 schrieb Michael Everson:
    >>At 13:12 +0100 2008-01-03, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
    >>>I complied a little consideration upon it, see
    >>>- Will be funny business for our case pairing enthusiasts :-)
    >>On foot of the shape of the letter I would
    >>consider encoding it as the capital form of
    >That would surely be wrong. The shape reveals
    >that it is meant to be a synthesis of G and j.
    >This is something else than "some G".

    I don't see this as significant. The "script g"
    of the IPA looks very much like a "script a" with
    a j-like tail. In the context of the German
    dictionary you show, I would probably argue to
    encode /g/ with "g" and the "stimmhaftes sch"
    with the IPA "script g". It's clear that the
    letter used is a capital G with a tail and not a
    small letter, which is why a capital might be
    used. But the dot n that capital form is not
    significant. And the small-capital-g you've drawn
    with a dot above is, to my mind, a bit silly.

    Michael Everson *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 03 2008 - 08:45:04 CST