From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Dec 17 2003 - 11:30:33 EST
On 17/12/2003 05:30, Arcane Jill wrote:
>
> Far be it from me to stir things up even further, but...
>
> QUESTION - Is the rendering of {U+0065} {U+0302} (that's <i, combining
> circumflex above>) locale-dependent?
>
> I may have got this totally wrong, but it occurs to me that in
> non-Turkic fonts, U+0065 is "soft-dotted". That is, the dot disappears
> in the presence of any COMBINING....ABOVE modifier. But in Turkic,
> U+0065 is "hard-dotted", so the dot must not be removed if a
> circumflex is added. I freely admit I don't know whether Turkic uses
> circumflex or not, but the question will work just as well with /any/
> COMBINING....ABOVE modifier.
>
> ...
Turkish does in fact use circumflex above a, i and u, although rather
rarely and often dropped today (but no other diacritics above except for
umlaut as part of regular letters, no umlaut on i). i with circumflex is
especially rare but is sometimes written on Arabic loan words like millî
(/national/). Note carefully that this is pronounced as a variant of
*dotted* i, and replaced by dotted i (not dotless i) when the circumflex
is dropped, but it is written undotted in both upper and lower case.
Note the following found from a Google search, which gives some upper
and lower case equivalents.
TÜRK *MİLLÎ* KODLANDIRMA SİSTEMİ. *...* . *Millî* Kodlandırma Sisteminin
temelini ...
Conclusion: the right thing even for Turkish is to drop the dot on i
before a circumflex. But by the same argument we would also want to drop
the dot on dotless I. Oh dear, I have just made the whole issue even
more complicated!
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 17 2003 - 13:30:35 EST