Interchange requirement, was: A proposed change of name ...

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Sat Mar 06 2004 - 16:57:25 EST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Interchange requirement, was: A proposed change of name ..."

    On 06/03/2004 10:31, Doug Ewell wrote:

    >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character is no longer in effect, or at least seriously weakened.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.

    Well, if the publishers of this dictionary prepare an on-line edition
    and put it on the web, does that count as "interchange"? Or is
    "interchange" required to be bidirectional? This is a general principle
    which affects words used in ancient texts as well as cases like this one.

    >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. ...

    I would suspect that very few such scholars actually write new texts or
    even sentences. The most they are likely to do is to copy words or short
    phrases from existing texts, and reconstruct citation forms that are not
    actually attested. The characters I had in mind were in fact ones like
    the Greek zero sign and some other recently added Greek symbols, which
    occur in a very few MSS, see
    I am not objecting to these characters, far from it, just pointing out
    that some characters are used much less even than the ligatures in question.

    >... 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.
    Not CGJ please. That should not be used to affect the rendering of a
    character; and indeed attempts to use it in this way are likely to fail
    with much present software (see my 24 February posting to the Unicode
    Hebrew list). ZWJ might be suitable.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 06 2004 - 17:28:46 EST