From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 11:18:11 EST
On 05/01/2004 07:27, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk@qaya.org>
>
>
>>On 05/01/2004 05:53, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>Note that the name I gave just suggests its approximate look. It does not
>>>necessarily mean its is semantically correct. So of course, if the only
>>>
>>>
>use
>
>
>>>of
>>>this i with lower-right hook has a better traditional name, it should
>>>
>>>
>have a
>
>
>>>name that matches this tradition if it is ever encoded. But for now, in
>>>absence of this character in Unicode, the composition:
>>> <Latin small letter dotless-i><combining retroflex hook below>
>>>or
>>> <Latin capital letter I><combining retroflex hook below>
>>>is quite good to represent it, and it works with Turkish/Azeri case
>>>mappings.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Unfortunately in the same old alphabets the Turkish/Azeri case mappings
>>don't work with the normal I/i as these follow the normal western case
>>mappings.
>>
>>
>
>Why not then use the Latin ton six for all texts in that period, and allow
>glyph variants to show the I with right hook glyph used in early Latin
>Azeri?
>
>
>
That might work with Azeri, but not with Nogai and Khakass which
apparently used these two glyphs as separate letters (though this might
need checking, not an easy task!)
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 12:01:07 EST