Re: Characters for Cakchiquel

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 15:59:19 EST

  • Next message: David Starner: "Re: Characters for Cakchiquel"

    (Peter and I don't really disagree, but I'm playing devil's advocate here.)

    At 13:45 -0600 27/03/2003, wrote:
    > wrote on 03/27/2003 12:19:44 PM:
    >> >Is tresillo caseless? Yes.
    >> How do you know?
    >OK, I don't have first-hand evidence.

    Then you don't say "Yes".

    >But, I think it's pretty unlikely that there is case on the basis that:
    >- this was clearly innovated from a caseless digit

    We have seen that case often accrues to lettricized digits. Compare
    Zhuang letters.

    >- the source documenting this David mentioned apparently does not report a
    >case pair

    I would not assume anything from one little pic like that about what
    the source actually documents.

    >- the cuatrillo is a very similar situation, and while I have seen recent
    >usage of that, I've not seen any evidence of a case pair

    Yet in the MS it may in fact have had case. The Algonquin letter OU
    is in that situation. Many modern users just use digit 8. But the
    original evidence for the charcter showed that before it was
    reanalyzed as 8 it had case.

    >Of course, none of this is certain -- I'm making a conjecture (but one I
    >feel is almost certainly true). I was not assuming that any character
    >proposal was going to be based on my comments. I was merely suggesting for
    >David's benefit what I think may be appropriate.

    Heh. You said "Yes"....

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 16:58:18 EST