On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 15:57:26 +0100
Joó Ádám <adam_at_jooadam.hu> wrote:
> The
> dot above i and j may be considered as a glyphic feature, but it can
> also be considered as the addition of a diacritic for whtever reason.
> The reason of course was typographical, but from an encoding point of
> view this does not necessarily matter. Cf. the use of diaresis in
> English words like coöperation, which is also typographical,
> nevertheless explicitly encoded.
The diaeresis potentially contrasts words; it indicates a syllable
boundary, and prevents hybrids like ‘zoology’, where the vowel of the
first syllable has been infected by the 'oo'. (For actually
contrasting words, it’s vary rare - ‘coöp’ v. ‘coop’ is the best I could
come up with quickly, and the former is normally spelt ‘co-op’.)
Richard.
Received on Sat Feb 02 2013 - 11:25:32 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Feb 02 2013 - 11:25:33 CST