Doug Ewell wrote:
I see a few people have actually downloaded MathText and tried it out.
I thought it would make a better joke to actually implement the thing,
complete with UI mini-frills (icons to indicate scripts supported by the
chosen style, selectable Unicode 3.x/4.x conversion to SCRIPT SMAL
Some people asked me where they could see copies of my Unicode 4.0 slides
and ICU Overview slides from the Prague conference. I posted them on my
website, at http://www.macchiato.com/.
Once Steven gets back, we'll post copies of the LDML slides (and the ICU
Overview slides) on the ICU site.
Mark
Peter,
> Jim Allan wrote on 04/02/2003 12:27:07 PM:
>
> > This fits a normal convention in American linguistics to use ogonek to
> > signify a nasal.
>
> That isn't the only convention. I am finding several samples of typographic
> retroflex hook being used to indicate nasalisation of vowels.
J
> Creating
> palatal-hook v's, x's, k's, s's, and so on if they are not
> in significant use and when multiple, equally accurate,
> alternative representations are available, may not be the best
> thing to do.
Incidentally, reviewing Pullum and Ladusaw (1986) to help
provide the definitive answe
Jim Allan wrote on 04/02/2003 12:27:07 PM:
> This fits a normal convention in American linguistics to use ogonek to
> signify a nasal.
That isn't the only convention. I am finding several samples of typographic
retroflex hook being used to indicate nasalisation of vowels.
- Peter
--
Ken Whistler wrote on 04/02/2003 01:47:22 PM:
> I still think that is the most consistent way to deal with some
> set of Latin letters with palatal hooks.
>
> However, I would like to see indication, for the list that Peter
> is assembling, that these are, indeed, in some established
> orthograph
Jim Allan responded to Joe Becker:
> Joe posted:
>
> > c. CEDILLAS AND HOOKS:
> >
> > Two cedillas and two hooks are required as diacritical marks
> > for bibliographic
> > transcription, and also for the proper representation of a
> > number of languages
> > (as documented in ANSI Z39.47-198
Peter quoted me:
> As far as I know, the same completeness issue does not apply for the
> retroflex and palatal hooks -- so for those, use of the preformed
> base letters is probably the better recommendation, rather than use
> of the non-spacing diacritics together with ligature tables in the fon
Joe posted:
c. CEDILLAS AND HOOKS:
Two cedillas and two hooks are required as diacritical marks for bibliographic
transcription, and also for the proper representation of a number of languages
(as documented in ANSI Z39.47-1985 and ISO 5426-1983).
These four diacritical marks are present in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/02/2003 10:32:51 AM:
>
> > I would replace the normal termination of the main vertical stem
> > of each letter, and attach the retroflex hook as a straight
> > continuation of this stem (the i with retroflex hook would end up
> At 11:33 -0600 2003-04-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/02/2003 11:28:28 AM:
> >
> >> Yes, I would consider those ogoneks. What do they signify in Dogrib?
> >> Nasalisation?
> >
> >Not yet sure, but waiting to find out.
>
> I would imagine they are n
John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/02/2003 11:28:28 AM:
> Yes, I would consider those ogoneks. What do they signify in Dogrib?
> Nasalisation?
I've gotten a response: yes, they represent nasalisation. Vowels involved
are a, e, i and o.
- Peter
-
Peter Constable posted:
I gather, then, that for the vowels in the attached image, you'd consider
these to be ogoneks (and, based on Adam's doc, not well-designed), yes?
The hooks are used to indicate nasal vowels as indicated from
http://members.tripod.com/~DeneFont/tech.htm where 'lower case n
At 09:53 -0600 2003-04-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is anybody using a or i with retroflex hook? If so, then for what
purpose?
This is what I'm in the process of trying to determine. The language in
question is Dogrib.
Those are ogoneks, I am sure.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *
At 11:33 -0600 2003-04-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/02/2003 11:28:28 AM:
Yes, I would consider those ogoneks. What do they signify in Dogrib?
Nasalisation?
Not yet sure, but waiting to find out.
I would imagine they are nasals as in Navajo.
--
Michael
Jim Allen wrote on 04/02/2003 09:59:02 AM:
> U+0322 RETROFLEX HOOK is an artifact of Unicode...
I was not specifically asking about this combining mark, and I have been
convinced that it's use should be avoided.
My question was really typographic in nature. And specifically related to
research
At 09:32 AM 4/2/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would replace the normal termination
> of the main vertical stem of each letter, and attach the retroflex hook
as
> a straight continuation of this stem (the i with retroflex hook would end
> up looking something like a reversed j).
I take it, so
John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/02/2003 11:28:28 AM:
> Yes, I would consider those ogoneks. What do they signify in Dogrib?
> Nasalisation?
Not yet sure, but waiting to find out.
- Peter
---
Peter Constable
At 09:18 AM 4/2/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I gather, then, that for the vowels in the attached image, you'd consider
these to be ogoneks (and, based on Adam's doc, not well-designed), yes?
Yes, I would consider those ogoneks. What do they signify in Dogrib?
Nasalisation?
John Hudson
Tiro Ty
John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/02/2003 10:32:51 AM:
> I would replace the normal termination
> of the main vertical stem of each letter, and attach the retroflex hook
as
> a straight continuation of this stem (the i with retroflex hook would end
> up looking something like a revers
> U+0322 RETROFLEX HOOK is an artifact of Unicode.
All characters are artifacts, this one came to Unicode from bibliographic standards,
so that would be where to seek its usage if any.
Joe
RLG COMMENTS ON UNICODE (VERSION DATE: SEPT 11, 1989)
...
c. CEDILLAS AND HOOKS:
Two cedillas and
John:
Thanks for the very useful info.
I gather, then, that for the vowels in the attached image, you'd consider
these to be ogoneks (and, based on Adam's doc, not well-designed), yes?
- Peter
---
Peter Constable
Non-R
Stefan Persson wrote:
> This program looks good; however, it would be nice if it could convert
> e.g. "ä" into "a"+combining diæresis instead of just keeping it in the
> normal style. "ä" needs to be supported by mathematical fonts in any
> case, as it is often used to indicate d²a/dt² where t r
At 07:55 PM 4/1/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a typographic difference between a or i with ogonek versus a or i
with retroflex hook? If I'm looking at a sample, what are the
distinguishing characteristics that I can use to determine whether I'm
seeing an ogonek or a retroflex hook?
The n
Peter Constable posted:
Is there a typographic difference between a or i with ogonek versus a or i
with retroflex hook? If I'm looking at a sample, what are the
distinguishing characteristics that I can use to determine whether I'm
seeing an ogonek or a retroflex hook?
U+0322 RETROFLEX HOOK is an
> Is anybody using a or i with retroflex hook? If so, then for what
> purpose?
This is what I'm in the process of trying to determine. The language in
question is Dogrib.
- Peter
---
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Ini
There are small updates to:
UAX #9: The Bidirectional Algorithm (Proposed Update)
[http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/tr9-11d3.html]
UAX #24: Script Names (Proposed Update)
[http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24/tr24-5d7.html]
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "William Overington" writes:
> I have now completed and published my document on the topic of displaying
> languages of the Indian subcontinent upon the DVB-MHP platform.
In fairness, you ought to take account of the fact that languages of
the Indian subcontinent ha
Doug Ewell wrote:
Finally! The freedom to express yourself with bold, italic, Fraktur and
more... all in plain text! Give Notepad the workout it was meant to
have! Give your fancy page layout software the afternoon off! Give
standardizers a migraine!
This program looks good; however, it would
At 21:55 -0600 2003-04-01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a typographic difference between a or i with ogonek versus a or i
with retroflex hook? If I'm looking at a sample, what are the
distinguishing characteristics that I can use to determine whether I'm
seeing an ogonek or a retroflex hook?
N
I have now completed and published my document on the topic of displaying
languages of the Indian subcontinent upon the DVB-MHP platform. DVB-MHP
stands for Digital Video Broadcasting - Multimedia Home Platform. Details
of the DVB-MHP system are available from the http://www,mhp.org webspace.
The
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is there a typographic difference between a or i with ogonek versus a or i
> with retroflex hook? If I'm looking at a sample, what are the
> distinguishing characteristics that I can use to determine whether I'm
> seeing an ogonek or a retroflex hook?
John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/02/2003 12:27:08 AM:
> I can't see any advantage to such atomic encoding in a modern text
> processing environment with smart font support. It is easy enough to map
> e.g. b + palatal hook to a ligature using a glyph composition feature.
In a unicoRe t
> Not necessarily, but given the three jokers who submitted it,
> it might be a fair assumption. *backspaces to heart-dot all the i's*
>
> --Ken
>
> P.S. For next February 14, I am looking forward to the proposal
> for the COMBINING PENETRATING NORTH EAST ARROW OVERLAY (aka
> Cupid's arrow), so t
34 matches
Mail list logo
