Re: German 0364 COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER E

From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Mon Dec 29 2003 - 11:27:19 EST

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: [hebrew] Re: Ancient Northwest Semitic Script (was Re: why Aramaic now)"

    From: "Kent Karlsson" <kentk@cs.chalmers.se>
    > Don't know. But there are instances of sharp s (ß) that look like a
    ligated
    > long-s (ſ) and ezh (ʒ).

    We have:
    02A7;LATIN SMALL LETTER TESH DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER T
    ESH;;;;
    but no canonical or compatibility decomposition as t + esh, even though it
    is a clear ligature
    using the short-leg esh.

    I wonder why there's no VARIANT defined for the short leg ESH (i.e. that has
    no descender
    below the baseline).

    In fact other interesting "digraphs" are:
    02A3;LATIN SMALL LETTER DZ DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER D Z;;;;
    02A4;LATIN SMALL LETTER DEZH DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER D
    YOGH;;;;
    02A5;LATIN SMALL LETTER DZ DIGRAPH WITH CURL;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER
    D Z CURL;;;;
    02A6;LATIN SMALL LETTER TS DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER T S;;;;
    02A7;LATIN SMALL LETTER TESH DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER T
    ESH;;;;
    02A8;LATIN SMALL LETTER TC DIGRAPH WITH CURL;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER
    T C CURL;;;;
    02A9;LATIN SMALL LETTER FENG DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;;;;;
    02AA;LATIN SMALL LETTER LS DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;;;;;
    02AB;LATIN SMALL LETTER LZ DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;;;;;

    For D Z CURL, it's strange that we don't find in the UCD a decomposition
    similar to the decomposition of D Z...

    Finally, it seems that these two:
    021C;LATIN CAPITAL LETTER YOGH;Lu;0;L;;;;;N;;;;021D;
    021D;LATIN SMALL LETTER YOGH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;;;021C;;021C
    are variants of
    01B7;LATIN CAPITAL LETTER EZH;Lu;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN CAPITAL LETTER YOGH;;;0292;
    0292;LATIN SMALL LETTER EZH;Ll;0;L;;;;;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER YOGH;;01B7;;01B7
    and I wonder how these YOGH differ from EZH, or if the Unicode 1.0 name of
    EZH was misleading...

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 29 2003 - 12:08:04 EST