From: Doug Ewell (dewell@roadrunner.com)
Date: Sat Jan 05 2008 - 13:49:02 CST
Karl Pentzlin <karl dash pentzlin at acssoft dot de> wrote:
> I presume that a systematic survey on dictionaries using other
> phonetic systems than IPA will "unearth" a lot of other symbols of
> this kind.
>
> In my opinion, a proposal to add such characters to Unicode (based
> e.g. on the fact that there is a need to cite such phonetic notations
> exactly) must be based on a systematic survey on (e.g.) dictionaries
> published in Germany, and must solve the problem of the use of the
> same letters in Antiqua and Fraktur with different meanings in a
> convincing way.
I agree with Karl. Phonetic transcription systems ought to be defined
and documented somewhere, and should not need to be "discovered"
piecemeal, like archaeological relics. If no such definition can be
found, then the individual encoded letters are really only useful for
reproducing the exact text in which they were found -- in other words,
we are encoding glyphs.
On the other hand, Phaistos.
> I do not see a priority for such work as long as phonetic systems
> which are still in use, like Teuthonista or landsmålsalfabetet, are
> not encoded.
What is preventing those from being encoded?
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 05 2008 - 13:51:19 CST