2016-12-26 13:45 GMT-02:00 Yifán Wáng <747.neutron_at_gmail.com>:
> You may be under impression that the letter has something to do with
> morphology, but my argument is that the original "Letter for
> representation of morpheme in Japanese" is a misnomer and this letter
> is totally unrelated to morphological context.
>
I agree, and already said I agreed in my first email. I know how Japanese
is represented in IPA and how /Q/ and /N/ are used. My point is that I
don't think phonologists' small-caps Q has *more *justification to be in
Unicode than morphologists’ small-caps everything.
> For example, when you write ᴀᴅᴠ (all small
> capital), the letters still stand for ordinary A, D and V, for this is
> obviously the abbreviation of "adverb". It's more like the whole
> sequence ADV made shrunken in "small caps" mode or style, which is a
> parallel operation to italicization or boldification.
Which is parallel to how bold and italics are used in mathematics, which
was the argument to get them into Unicode, as I've also pointed earlier.
Received on Mon Dec 26 2016 - 09:59:18 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Dec 26 2016 - 09:59:18 CST