Re: unicode Digest V4 #3

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 14:13:38 EST

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: unicode Digest V4 #3"

    On 05/01/2004 10:23, Philippe Verdy wrote:

    >From: "Michael Everson" <everson@evertype.com>
    >
    >
    >
    >>At 16:27 +0100 2004-01-05, Philippe Verdy wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>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?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Because that wouldn't be right.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Even if it's encoded with a variant selector after the latin tone six? As
    >this is an historic variant of the letter which was then changed to Latin
    >soft-sign during the first Latin period, I think it would allow "unifying"
    >Azeri texts coded in Latin in 1923-1933 and in 1933-1939.
    >
    >Considering that Peter knows this language and has seen various forms for
    >this character where the bottom hook slightly evolved with various placement
    >of this hook, up to the point of becoming similar to the cyrilic soft-sign,
    >I think it may be a good option (the 1933 reform may simply reflect a
    >gradual evolution of the glyph actually used by people, and a way to use
    >existing fonts made to write Russian texts in papers and books)
    >
    >Was there other uses of this i with lower-right hook in other languages or
    >regions ?
    >
    >
    >
    May I remind you of the following, my reply to Charles, on this list
    this today:

    > Not a good idea: the Nogai and Khakass languages appear to have used both
    > gha/oi and "i with lower right hook" according to
    > http://www.writingsystems.net/languages/nogai/nogailatin.htm and
    > http://www.writingsystems.net/languages/khakass/khakasslatin.htm .
    >
    > Charles Cox
    >
    >
    >
    > Thank you, Charles. I note also that both Nogai and Khakass used the
    > dotless i with lower right as well as the small b or soft sign as
    > distinct characters, which implies that these two cannot be considered
    > as glyph variants as they might be for Azerbaijani.

    -- 
    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 - 15:04:13 EST