From: Janusz S. Bieñ (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 17 2010 - 13:12:12 CDT
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 André Szabolcs Szelp <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think it would be a good idea to contact MUFI and ask whether they'd
> include these characters. They share a lot with them in common, even
> though they must be considered early modern instead of late mediaeval.
> BTW, I think your combining "small EZH as combining character" can be
> considered a variant of the COMBINING CEDILLE, or to be more exact, it
> _is_ a CEDILLE, and the orthography specifies it's placement for D, D
> WITH ACUTE and R (slightly more to the right than to the center),
> which does not even conflict as (an actual)* cedille is note employed
> for these letters otherwise; the CEDILLE itself is a little Z
> (zed-ille 'little Zed'), which was commonly written in the ezh form
Thanks for reminding me the origin of cedille. If Wikipedia is
correct, it's original shape
is identical to that used in Polish.
I will follow your advice.
P.S. My apology for my recent silence. I was abroad on a meeting which
appeared more busy than expected and despite the Internet access I was
unable to come back to the topic earlier. I hope to catch up with the
-- , dr hab. Janusz S. Bien, prof. UW - Uniwersytet Warszawski (Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej) Prof. Janusz S. Bien - Warsaw University (Department of Formal Linguistics) firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, http://fleksem.klf.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 17 2010 - 13:20:00 CDT