Re: Offline: Latin chi and stretched x

From: Denis Jacquerye <>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:04:32 +0200

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Michael Everson <> wrote:
> What is your point, though?

Latin stretched x has been accepted based on examples with an Italic
glyph like Lepsius' chi, a glyph like Greek chi and a stretched x
taller than x-height (and not below baseline). All these are strictly
different glyphs.
But Latin chi is being proposed as a different character because IPA
has used a different glyph. Why?
Furthermore, the Latin capital Chi is being proposed based on Lepsius'
capital Chi which glyphs are strictly different from that one

> Part of this exercise is to disunify the last three IPA character which were mistakenly unified with Greek. The IPA's chi is definitely Latin, and definitely different from Greek chi and as far as I can see different from the stretched x.

My concern is only with Latin chi being unified with Latin stretched
x. The disunification of Latin chi from Greek chi (or the others in
the proposal) is a good thing, I just think it has already been done
with stretched x given the examples.

> How do we move forward?

Is there evidence IPA Latin chi is any different from Teuthonista's
multiple stretched x? Both use the glyph of Greek chi sometimes, and
other glyphs other times.

> The evidence for disunifying beta is clear. That leaves chi and theta. I think that the casing madness involved with Greek theta makes disunification inevitable.

I agree and support disunification.

> That leaves chi.
> Or?

I disagree.

> Please help.
> On 4 Jun 2012, at 03:14, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
>> Hi,
>> There are some issues with the stretched x that has been accepted from
>> N4081 (Revised proposal to encode “Teuthonista” phonetic characters in
>> the UCS) and N4106 (Teuthonista ad hoc report) and the proposed Latin
>> chi from N4262 (Proposal to encode “Unifon” and other characters in
>> the UCS).
>> According to Michael Everson stretch x and Latin chi are different
>> strictly speaking, because of their shape and difference in weight of
>> diagonals – stretched x has the \ diagonal thicker than the /
>> diagonal, while the API Latin chi has the / diagonal thicker than the
>> \ diagonal (like Greek chi). Although this is true. I don't believe
>> these are clearly different glyphs, I seriously doubt this makes them
>> different characters or that there is any evidence supporting such
>> difference.
>> 1. The two stretched x used in Sprachatlas von Bayerisch-Swaben (SBS)
>> and Sprachatlas von Unterfranken (SMF) which are not the same glyphs
>> strictly speaking represent the same sound represented with chi (Greek
>> glyph) in other works using Teuthonista.
>> 1.1 The stretched x used in those example are either in italic form
>> (SBS), which is identical to Lepsius's chi, or in sans serif form
>> (SMF), which is no different than some sans serif Greek chi except
>> that it is taller than x-height instead of below the baseline.
>> 1.2 The stretched x used in Gabriel 1985 Einführung in den
>> Vorarlberger Sprachatlas (VALTS) is actually the glyph of Greek chi.
>> 2. The capital Latin chi proposed in N4262 is actually based on
>> evidence of Lepsius's chi which has a different shape strictly
>> speaking than the one proposed. In other words, the proposed glyph has
>> no evidence of use.
>> Since those glyphs represents the same sounds (within works using
>> Teuthonista) or very similar sounds, and never co-occur should they
>> not be unified?
>> Lepsius Roman and italic Chi.png
>> from Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde (1868)
>> -- Lepsius' roman and italic capital chi are not the same as proposed capital
>> Teuthonista 1965-Wiesinger.jpg
>> from Teuthonista 1965
>> -- Teuthonista's chi is using Greek chi's glyph
>> N4081 - König 1997 - stretched x.png
>> from SBS
>> -- italic stretched x, almost identical to Lepsius italic chi.
>> N4081 - Gabriel 1985 - stretched x.png
>> from Einführung in den Vorarlberger Sprachatlas
>> -- this example of stretched x (letter and modifier letter) in N4081
>> is the same glyph as Greek chi.
>> N4081 - SMF 2.2 - stretch x
>> from SMF 2.2
>> -- this example of stretched x in N4081 is taller than x-height but
>> similar to Greek chi in some sans serif fonts.
>> N4262 - comparison with unseen Latin capital chi.png
>> -- This comparison in N4262 gives Latin letter capital x, Latin letter
>> small x, Latin letter small stretched x ~ Greek letter capital chi,
>> Greek letter small chi ~ proposed Latin letter capital chi, proposed
>> Latin letter small chi. However the Roman examples of stretched x in
>> N4081 are taller than x-height and not below baseline, the Italic
>> examples are like Greek chi or like Lepsius's chi. Furthermore, the
>> proposed Latin letter capital chi has no actual examples (stricly
>> speaking with glyph -- only Lepsius' capital chi has been used
>> instead).
>> --
>> Denis Moyogo Jacquerye
>> <Lepsius Roman and italic Chi.png><Teuthonista 1964-Wiesinger.jpg><N4081 - König 1997 - stretched x.png><N4081 - Gabriel 1985 - stretched x.png><N4081 - SMF 2.2 - stretch x.png><N4262 - comparison with unseen Latin capital chi.png>
> Michael Everson *

Denis Moyogo Jacquerye
African Network for Localisation
Nkótá ya Kongó míbalé ---
DejaVu fonts ---
Received on Mon Jun 04 2012 - 04:10:21 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2012 - 04:10:23 CDT