Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1

From: Patrick Andries (
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 16:43:37 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1"
    Страхиња Радић a écrit :
    Дана 2005.05.23 22:17, Kenneth Whistler је написао:
    The burden of proof at this point would be for demonstrating that
    a digraphic representation is insufficient, so that a separate
    Glagolitic digraph for this would need to be added to the standard.
    	By using this kind of reasoning, we would end up asking why the heck
    was ``fi'' or ``ffi'' encoded when these two can be expressed with their
    corresponding atoms,
    This one is easy : compatibility with important prexisting character sets.

     or, more closer to what I asked, why the Cyrillic
    ``yeriy'' was encoded as a standalone character, when it could be happily
    represented with a soft sign + ``deseteric'' (dotless) i? And why there is no
    dotless i in Cyrillic? It is used in some Serbo-slavic texts from from the XIX
    To represent which letter ? (I think an author wanted to introduce a dotless i for the Initial (K)HER(U), but I think this was a private initiative)
    	And nobody answered my other questions:
    	1) Why the variant characters were encoded? Ex: ``LATINATE MYSLITE'' is
    a variant of ``MYSLITE'', which should be expressed font-wise, NOT
    	2) What does ``LATINATE'' mean and in what language?
    Of latin origin, in English. It is a late Croatian form (according to Heinz Miklas) which calls it a replacement form : «Hier gemeint ist die späte kroatische Ersatzform, die der lateinischen Form M entspricht.». I don't know if Ersatzform would mean this is a purely glyphic variant.
    	3) Why ``SHTAPIC'' and not ``PALOCHKA'' or ``STICK''? And could someone
    explain to me what is the use of this character?
    I would also like to know (for French translation purposes).
    IOTIFIED LITTLE YUS'', which in my opinion would be more compatible with the
    Cyrillic counterpart?
    I also had noticed, I hoped the new form is better in English but I agree that this means consistency is not preserved.

    P. A.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 31 2005 - 16:44:27 CDT