From: Chris Harvey (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Nov 15 2005 - 12:42:51 CST
Ysgrifennodd Philippe Verdy <firstname.lastname@example.org> ar y 15-11-2005 am 12:21:
>> Why not also use the modifier U+02BC in Breton? As there is no
>> correspondance between character and pronunciation, then the "glottal"
>> aspect of U+02BC could be ignored. U+2019 could be reserved for
>> punctuation purposes only.
> I and Michel said that Breton uses the same set of characters as French.
> French does not have any glottal stop or modifier letter. It only has an
> apostrophe (used for contractions). So Breton uses the apostrophe, even
> if it's not a grammatical contraction. The decision was made about 30
> years ago, and used consistently in many books and dictionnaries !
> French does really use a lot the U+2019 apostrophe-quote, so does Breton.
I am aware of this. This is why I mentioned in the same email, “And if the
argument in favour for use of U+2019 in Breton is based on convention,
then all languages ought to be using U+2019 even for their glottal
From Michael Everson
>> any more than there is a rule about the phonetic value of <c> in any
>> particular language.
If there is no phonetic values attached to characters, then U+02BC need
not be a glottal stop.
What I’d like to know is, what’s the usage difference between U+02BC and
U+2019? If a language like Breton (for reasons of convention or otherwise)
is using U+2019 in its orthography as a trigraph <c’h>, then in this case
the apostrophe isn’t punctuation. If Mohawk is using an apostrophe in its
orthography (regardless of its pronunciation) it might as well also use
U+2019. Then, what is the use at all for U+02BC, IPA only perhaps?
-- Gwlad heb iaith, gwlad heb galon ᑭᑕᐢᑭᓇᐤ ᑳᓀᓱᐏᑌᐦᐃᓇᑿᐣ, ᑮᐢᐱᐣ ᐃᔨᐣᑐ ᐱᑭᐢᑵᐏᐣ ᐘᓂᑎᔭᐦᑭ (A country without its language is a country without a heart) www.languagegeek.com www.indigenous-language.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 15 2005 - 12:44:12 CST