Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

From: Hans Åberg <>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:09:40 +0200

> On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:43, Julian Bradfield <> wrote:

> Linguists aren't stupid, and they have no need for plain text
> representations of all their symbology. Linguists write in Word or
> LaTeX (or sometimes HTML), all of which can produce a wide range of
> symbols beyond the wit of Unicode.
> As I have remarked before, I have used "latin letter turned small
> capital K", for reasons that seemed good to me, and I was not one whit
> restrained by its absence from Unicode - nor was the journal.

It is possible to write math just using ASCII and TeX, which was the original idea of TeX. Is that want you want for linguistics?
Received on Mon Oct 10 2016 - 15:10:01 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Oct 10 2016 - 15:10:01 CDT