From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Fri Dec 05 2003 - 19:18:34 EST
Peter said:
> > On this list we
> > have discussed the relation of
> >
> > U+0294 LATIN SMALL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP
>
> Actually, is LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP. It is only the general category
> property in the UCS that suggests lowercase.
>
>
> > with an x-height *LATIN SMALL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP used in Athapascan.
> >
> > What shall we do? Research seems required. ;-)
>
> I think what seems required is simply to add a new character for the
> lowercase and change the property of 0294 to Lu.
Yee gawds, no!
Athapascan and every other North American language and language
family with glottal stops would have been using U+0294 for
its (case-unmarked) glottal stop for years now.
If anybody needs an explicitly uppercase glottal stop, then argue
the case (*hehe*) for that. But it is decidely wrong to take
what has all along been the unmarked/lowercase glottal stop,
reinterpret it as an *uppercase* glottal stop and introduce
a new lowercase glottal stop. *That* would result in endless
confusion and in data corruption.
Look at the text of Pullum and Ladusaw, p. 211. All those
x-height forms are simply glyph variants. If someone is
taking the cap-height form and *distinguishing* it as a
capital letter, then fine, come up with a new encoding for
it, but don't mess with the basic glottal stop itself.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 05 2003 - 19:59:10 EST