Re: IPA Greek

From: Michael Everson <everson_at_evertype.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:08:35 +0100

On 12 Sep 2013, at 11:04, Julian Bradfield <jcb+unicode_at_inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>>> we have latin chi thanks to German dialectologists, and latin beta thanks to Gabonese. My question is, why should they not be used for IPA ?
>>
>> I think they should. I will be taking this up with the Association.
>
> Then we have the problem that LATIN SMALL LETTER CHI seems to be (as originally named) a stretched x, which is what the uvular fricative sign *ought* to look like to be properly harmonious, but the IPA seems determined that it looks like a upright greek chi - wrong stroke bias, no roman serifs (in the current version), swung terminations to the TL-BR stroke. You describe this in your web page, but I'm not sure what you think the reference glyph should be: did the dialectologists use a true stretched x? I have tried using a stretched x in my transcriptions, and I have to say it looks weird!

Further clarification on this point was published in http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4296.pdf

> Somehow I hadn't noticed that ʋ was there - and also bizarrely named, since as PSG observes, it looks much more like upsilon than ʊ does. Why it was called V WITH HOOK rather than SCRIPT V? Was it for Africanist reasons?

028A is ʊ LATIN SMALL LETTER UPSILON
028B is ʋ LATIN SMALL LETTER V WITH HOOK

These are used for different sounds. I'm not sure that either name is particularly bizarre.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Received on Thu Sep 12 2013 - 08:10:50 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Sep 12 2013 - 08:10:51 CDT