Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

From: Julian Bradfield <>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 21:31:28 +0100 (BST)

On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg <> wrote:
> 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?

I don't see the need to do everything in plain text. Long ago, I spent
a great deal of time getting my editor to do semi-wysiwyg TeX maths
(work later incorporated into x-symbol), but actually it's a waste of
time and I've given up. Working mathematicians know LaTeX and its control
sequences. Even my 12-year old uses LaTeX control sequences to
communicate with his online maths courses.

Because phonetics has a much small set of symbols, I do kwəɪt ləɪk
biːɪŋ eɪbl tʊ duː ðɪs, and because they're also used in non-specialist
writing, it's useful to have the symbols hacked into Unicode instead
of hacked into specialist fonts.
But subscripts? No need.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Mon Oct 10 2016 - 15:31:47 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Oct 10 2016 - 15:31:52 CDT