From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Sat Dec 06 2003 - 23:28:17 EST
On 12/05/03 21:00, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 17:39 -0800 2003-12-05, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>>
>>> For those situations in which unmarked-case glottal has been used, I
>>> think it would cause the least confusion to leave 0294 as a cap-height
>>> glyph, and call it upper case.
>>
>>
>> I don't have time to argue this out today, but it is wrong,
>> wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
>>
>> Oh, by the way, did I say it was wrong?
>>
>> I'll try to argue the case in detail Monday.
>
>
> Take into consideration the innovation: a short glottal has been added
> because people wanted to case it like other letters. They might have
> made another typographic choice: they might have innovated a wide
> capital to distinguish it from the "lowercase tall" letter. But they
> didn't.
Height is a (the?) recognized distinction between upper and lower case.
Width isn't. So a "wide capital" wouldn't be the most intuitive choice.
What Ken says makes sense: lowercase is dominant, by far. Something
that's caseless (in a script that otherwise has case) which suddenly
acquires case has to be considered lowercase, since that's how it was
used all along.
> It would be nice to see texts and to have a local expert's view.
Yeah, but then we couldn't have the fun of arguing and making up stuff. :)
~mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 07 2003 - 00:14:58 EST