Re: Case mapping of dotless lowercase letters

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Dec 17 2003 - 11:30:33 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: Arabic Presentation Forms-A"

    On 17/12/2003 05:30, Arcane Jill wrote:

    >
    > Far be it from me to stir things up even further, but...
    >
    > QUESTION - Is the rendering of {U+0065} {U+0302} (that's <i, combining
    > circumflex above>) locale-dependent?
    >
    > I may have got this totally wrong, but it occurs to me that in
    > non-Turkic fonts, U+0065 is "soft-dotted". That is, the dot disappears
    > in the presence of any COMBINING....ABOVE modifier. But in Turkic,
    > U+0065 is "hard-dotted", so the dot must not be removed if a
    > circumflex is added. I freely admit I don't know whether Turkic uses
    > circumflex or not, but the question will work just as well with /any/
    > COMBINING....ABOVE modifier.
    >
    > ...

    Turkish does in fact use circumflex above a, i and u, although rather
    rarely and often dropped today (but no other diacritics above except for
    umlaut as part of regular letters, no umlaut on i). i with circumflex is
    especially rare but is sometimes written on Arabic loan words like millî
    (/national/). Note carefully that this is pronounced as a variant of
    *dotted* i, and replaced by dotted i (not dotless i) when the circumflex
    is dropped, but it is written undotted in both upper and lower case.
    Note the following found from a Google search, which gives some upper
    and lower case equivalents.

    TÜRK *MİLLÎ* KODLANDIRMA SİSTEMİ. *...* . *Millî* Kodlandırma Sisteminin
    temelini ...

    Conclusion: the right thing even for Turkish is to drop the dot on i
    before a circumflex. But by the same argument we would also want to drop
    the dot on dotless I. Oh dear, I have just made the whole issue even
    more complicated!

    -- 
    Peter Kirk
    peter@qaya.org (personal)
    peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
    http://www.qaya.org/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 17 2003 - 13:30:35 EST