At 10:29 -0600 2002-03-08, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>Jim Agenbroad responded (off list):
>
>> Not quite. On page 214 of 3.0 there is one RA vowel, a halant and a
>RI
> >vowel: RA(d) + RI(n) --> RI(n) +RA(sup) ( parens in lieu ofsubscript)
>
>I didn't realise that "RI" meant the vocalic R. I mistook it to mean
>something else. I find it a weakness of that section that such notations
>are not defined and prominently displayed in an easy-to-find location.
Actually, I would like to see that written R with dot below. We
should use decent transliteration in those notations; why not?
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Mar 08 2002 - 14:03:16 EST