Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?
haberg-1 at telia.com
Mon Oct 10 15:09:40 CDT 2016
> On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:43, Julian Bradfield <jcb+unicode at inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Linguists aren't stupid, and they have no need for plain text
> representations of all their symbology. Linguists write in Word or
> LaTeX (or sometimes HTML), all of which can produce a wide range of
> symbols beyond the wit of Unicode.
> As I have remarked before, I have used "latin letter turned small
> capital K", for reasons that seemed good to me, and I was not one whit
> restrained by its absence from Unicode - nor was the journal.
It is possible to write math just using ASCII and TeX, which was the original idea of TeX. Is that want you want for linguistics?
More information about the Unicode