Re: Latin Script

From: Tulasi (
Date: Mon Jun 14 2010 - 21:53:05 CDT

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: Writing a proposal for an unusual script: SignWriting"

    Actually, if I do not see letters/symbols along with names, in some
    cases I cannot recognize. I am not a typographer either.

    So like
    Edward -> Close, but not quite. Consider LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (ɸ)
    it would be great should you please post both name & letter/symbol
    associated with the name.

    Van -> Do you want to consider Y and Z as not Latin letters, because
    they were borrowed from Greek

    I din't think Latin speakers borrowed. From my memory hole they had
    adopted from Greek. And since this adoption was the work of true Latin
    speakers all ALL CAPS, i.e., A B C ... ... ... Z are known to be
    "classic Latin script". Also see the email by Jonathan Rosenne.

    If you read Edward's email he highlighted on chronology (of adoption
    from different scripts).

    Did true Latin speakers adopt LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (ɸ) to Latin script?
    Or was it done very recently after Unicode was created?

    May I ask Van please,
    can you post both names & symbols/letters that you referred in your email?
    Also please show how how GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI looks like.

    This will help me to understand!


    Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:43:18 -0700
    Subject: Re: Latin Script
    To: Tulasi <>, Edward Cherlin <>
    Cc:, Mark Davis ☕ <>, Otto Stolz
    <>,, Jonathan
    Rosenne <>

    From: Tulasi <>

    > Thanks for the input Edward!
    > Yep, I shell explore time-chronology as well.
    > Edward -> Close, but not quite. Consider LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (ɸ).

    Amazingly, I consider Latin Small Letter Phi to be a part of the Latin
    script. Why?: in my typographic life, I would design it differently
    from Greek small Letter Phi. The Greek phi needs to work with other
    Greek letters. The Latin phi needs to work in phonetic notation, which
    is Latin letters; it needs to have more contrast with Latin Small
    Letter Q than the Greek phi, so it has an ascender. As a Classicist, a
    Greek phi with an ascender interrupts the flow of text, unless in a
    slant font, so it is designed quite differently from Latin Small
    Letter Phi. It's just like Cyrillic Dze and Sha, which have been
    borrowed from Latin and Coptic, are designed and act like Cyrillic

    > Mark gave a new link of letter/symbol that has LATIN (thanks Mark!):
    > Mark ->[:script=Latn:]&g=age
    > Now, how many letters/symbols in that link are like "LATIN SMALL
    > LETTER PHI (ɸ)", i.e., not from Latin-script?

    there's really no way to make any sort of distinction like that. Do
    you want to consider Y and Z as not Latin letters, because they were
    borrowed from Greek, not adapted from Etruscan? How about Þ and Wynn?
    They are from Runic. Should U+019B, Latin Small Letter Lambda with
    Stroke be considered not Latin, even though it is not found in any
    other script? There are a number of these, and the only classification
    that is not completely arbitrary is to consider them ALL to be part of
    the Latin script, including Latin Small Letter Phi.

    > Also, how do I find the list of letters/symbols that do not have LATIN
    > in names but from Latin-script?

    The Spacing Modfier Letters and Combining Diacritical Marks may also
    need to be included for a really comprehensive list, and these are
    contained in their own blocks, Phonetic Extensions, and Phonetic
    Extensions Supplement. Then the question is whether you should include
    Devanagari Om. What about Currency signs? Punctuation? Should it
    simply be the union of Script=common and Script=Latin? Script=common
    includes puntucation from all languages, so you end up with Dandas and
    Arabic commas, is that right? The question really only makes sense if
    it has context: for what purpose are you defining something as Latin

    > Tulasi


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 14 2010 - 21:57:10 CDT