Re: A proposed change of name for Latin Small Letter TH with Strikethrough

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sat Mar 06 2004 - 13:31:48 EST

  • Next message: Ernest Cline: "Re: A proposed change of name for Latin Small Letter TH with Strikethrough"

    Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:

    > Anyway, the character "has well defined user community / usage", the
    > users of the dictionary in question. It is not clear that "user"
    > implies those who write the character, or only those who read it.
    > Many historical characters have been accepted for Unicode which are
    > not regularly written, except in copying old texts, but are still
    > regularly read.

    This implies that the requirement for "interchange" of the proposed
    character is no longer in effect, or at least seriously weakened. I'm
    not sure if that's the case.

    I don't know how many scholars actually *write* Linear B and
    Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform, creating a true "interchange" situation, but
    I'll bet it's more than the number of dictionary users who *write*
    th-with-strikethrough. The number of people who *use* the dictionary
    and learn this symbol on an ad-hoc basis (either by consulting the key
    or just figuring it out) may be an overestimate of the true number of
    "users of the symbol."

    I have to say I've seen lots worse suggestions than the ones presented
    by Ernest. In particular, I don't think this proposed character
    survives the "positive vs. negative" criteria in Annex G of N2652R. I
    don't see why this needs to be an atomic character instead of some
    combination of t, CGJ, h, and either U+0337 or U+0338.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 06 2004 - 14:02:04 EST