From: Andreas Stötzner (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Aug 17 2009 - 15:30:06 CDT
I found the elaborate contributions from Asmus Freytag, Michael Everson
and Julian Bradfield most valuable. I wished the phoneticians and
IPAists would take notice of the amount of trouble we embark on here to
do *their* business â€¦
Though Iâ€™m not in the position to eventually summarize all that I have
an impression (also from contributions by others!), that the scale
leans towards some good reasoning for disunification and hence separate
encoding of phonetic Î˛, Î¸ and Ď‡. Which does not mean that reasoning in
another direction would not have its own merits, certainly.
For me the core question remains: how do deal decently with a
borderline case under practical preconditions. And practice is it what
weâ€™re talking about â€“ after all.
Yes, disunification is the standard nightmare for the â€śplain text geekâ€ť
From the typographers point of view there are two possible options:
either Greek and Latin are harmonized in a given font so as to make a
mixture of glyphs from both parts seeming smoothly fitting within
IPA-text, or Greek and Latin are rendered in a more distinct way of
graphical glyph structuring so that a mixture would prove to be rather
disturbing for the phonetic scholar. â€“ This is NOT the place to jugde
between the two. Just to recognise that those two ways are legitimate
and present in practice. Follows that encoding decisions ought to make
proper choices viable in either cases.
Last but not least, this is not a question of typographic *geekness*.
Itâ€™s a systemic issue: are phonetic Î˛, Î¸ and Ď‡ the same characters as
the Greek Î˛, Î¸ and Ď‡?
I think, beyond glyph shaping details, it all comes down to this simple
Andreas StĂ¶tzner Signographie
Signographisches Institut Andreas StĂ¶tzner i.A. (Pegau/Sa.)
firstname.lastname@example.org Tel. +49-34296-74849 Fax +49-34296-74815
Willkommen auf www.signographie.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 17 2009 - 15:30:45 CDT