RE: Irish dotless I (was: Languages with letters that always take diacriticals

From: Carl W. Brown (
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 - 10:35:43 EST

  • Next message: Frank Yung-Fong Tang: "Re: in the NEW YORK TIMES today, report of a USA patent for a met hod to make the Arabic language easier to read/write/typeset"


    > > Irish in Roman script is written i with dot above, Irish in traditional
    > > script is written i without dot above. The current flooding of our local
    > > advertising and publishing markets by various non-native uncial fonts to
    > > write our language goes against tradition in imposing on us
    > that unwanted
    > > dot. Is there any way at all that using Unicode can help support our
    > > tradition?
    > It seems that Unicode has supported the dotless i for over a decade -- and
    > in software products that use Unicode for the bulk of that time. Your
    > tradition is supported by anyone who believes it important enough to take
    > the trouble to support it (where trouble in this context is defined as
    > installing just about any remotely recent OS that supports Unicode!).

    Language that do not have the dotless I have different casing rules. To
    implement dotless I support for Irish we would have to change Unicode. If
    they want to use the dotted character and just change the glyph then it is
    just a font change.

    There are pros and cons to both approaches. Is there an official Irish
    language governing board that could make the case for the dotless i and
    decide the best way to handle it? Unlike Turkish and Azeri which have both
    the decision is much harder.

    I suspect that just changing the font to eliminate the dot will be easier.
    Software won't have to be changed, existing code pages will not have to be
    changed, searches will work, etc.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 16 2004 - 11:08:08 EST