Re: Origins of w

From: Karl Williamson <>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:06:56 -0600

On 04/16/2012 12:04 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 9:23 AM, arno.s wrote:
>> Am 16/04/2012 15:55, schrieb Andreas Prilop:
>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, David Starner wrote:
>>>> At Wiktionary, we're looking at (U+1E98) and we can't figure out
>>>> where it came from. It's from Unicode 1.1, which makes it hard to look
>>>> up discussion on adding it, and the characters around it don't seem to
>>>> give clues to its origin.
>>> U+1E96 has the note "Semitic transliteration". Indeed U+1E96 to U+1E9A
>>> are used for transliterating Arabic according to ISO 233.
>>> "w with ring" is "waw with sukun".
>> this must be the answer.
>> U+1E97 is used for "Semitic transliteration" as well,
>> and U+E99 is in Arabic very similar to U+1E98,
>> but *any* consonant occurs with sukun, so why did they not
>> encode "b with ring", "d with ring", "d with dot below
>> and ring above" and so on?
>> And seriously, I'd like to have "s with macron below" -- although
>> I know there is no chance of getting it encode. it is used for
>> transcribing Arab dialects.

But, couldn't a named sequence be created for it?
> All of these combinations exist as combining sequences. There's not
> benefit in encoding them, on the contrary, adding them now would
> destabilze normalization and therefore they can't be added. Most of the
> ones in the 1E00 block wouldn't have been added except for the
> particular history of how Unicode 1.1 was arrived at.
> A./
Received on Mon Apr 16 2012 - 15:10:23 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Apr 16 2012 - 15:10:34 CDT