From: Benjamin M Scarborough (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jan 22 2008 - 02:17:10 CST
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> I don't see why there should be any problem in principle to encode
> COMBINING PARENTHESISED DOUBLE RIGHT HOOK BELOW, COMBINING
> PARENTHESISED DIAERESIS BELOW, COMBINING FAT TILDE, etc.
If memory serves, extIPA uses U+207D SUPERSCRIPT LEFT PARENTHESIS,
U+207E SUPERSCRIPT RIGHT PARENTHESIS, U+208D SUBSCRIPT LEFT
PARENTHESIS, and U+208E SUBSCRIPT RIGHT PARENTHESIS for parenthesized
diacritics. These would probably be preferable to separate
parenthesized combining marks.
*COMBINING FAT TILDE, on the other hand, does appear to be a viable
character for encoding: in spite of being a bold tilde, it also has a
well-defined use for strong nasalization and is distinct from COMBINING
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 22 2008 - 02:21:16 CST