Jim Allan scripsit:
John Cowan includes SMALL C WITH OGONEK in a list of characters at
http://mercury.ccil.org/~cowan/elsie/elsie.txt.
As I noted at elsie.html:
The data should not be accepted uncritically, as transcription
errors are almost certainly present: for example, the 16
Peter continued:
Ken Whistler wrote on 04/02/2003 03:54:10 PM:
That isn't the only convention. I am finding several samples of
typographic
retroflex hook being used to indicate nasalisation of vowels.
Jim Allan is right. It is the *ogonek* which is used to signify
the nasalization
Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/04/2003 02:25:02 PM:
They are very
clearly the retroflex hook and not ogonek.
This last is a fallacious statement on its face.
Why you would feel that such user sense of the characters they
are using is belied by your analysis of the shape
Peter,
Why you would feel that such user sense of the characters they
are using is belied by your analysis of the shape of the hooks
used in the IJAL font is beyond me.
I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I was not referring to their status in terms of
defining characters. I was *only*
Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/04/2003 05:09:25 PM:
There is another convention, admittedly far less widespread: cedilla.
I don't think this is an accepted convention.
No, not very widespread.
I think those instances where you find a
linguist publishing using vowels with
Peter,
Note that the example you posted also had an h-ogonek, so the
usage is not limited to vowels, per se.
Indeed.
(Although that particular
entity itself is a little bizarre, since you cannot really
nasalize a voiceless glottal fricative.
Then you'd be even more surprised
From _The Unicode Standard Version 3.0_, chapter 7.1, European
Alphabetic Scripts, Latin Extended-A: U+0100U+017F:
In general, characters with cedillas or ogoneks below are subject to
variable typographical usage, depending on the availability and quality
of fonts used, the technology, and the
Ken Whistler wrote on 04/02/2003 03:54:10 PM:
That isn't the only convention. I am finding several samples of
typographic
retroflex hook being used to indicate nasalisation of vowels.
Jim Allan is right. It is the *ogonek* which is used to signify
the nasalization of vowels. If you have
At 01:45 -0600 2003-04-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't comment on the historical development of this practice and whether
it might have arisen from confusion with ogonek. I think the library on our
center has IJAL from its inception (nearly 70 years), so I could jump back
a decade or two or
Michael Everson wrote on 04/03/2003 07:34:53 AM:
Peter, I often suggest this, and you rarely take me up on it
I take you up on it when it suits what I need to do.
What a bunch of base-ogonek
characters could mean is a mystery to me.
A bunch of ogonek-modified characters: a-ogonek,
At 09:28 -0600 2003-04-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Everson wrote on 04/03/2003 07:34:53 AM:
Peter, I often suggest this, and you rarely take me up on it
I take you up on it when it suits what I need to do.
Well if you want people to give accurate advice based on analysis of
actual
The attached sample from IJAL shows what is typographically a retroflex
hook being used to indicate nasalisation. I've been in touch with the
out-going editor, and he indicated that he had thought they were using
ogonek.
I've looked back in IJAL a little, and it appears that between 1991 and
.
Michael Everson wrote,
And I mean L2/WG2 documents in PDF format, not a web-page with gifs
that take forever to load. I was unable to review your
tresillo/cuatrillo document for this reason.
Don't you have a web browser?
HTML pages with gifs shouldn't take any longer to download than
PDF
And I mean L2/WG2 documents in PDF format, not a web-page with gifs
that take forever to load. I was unable to review your
tresillo/cuatrillo document for this reason.
Don't you have a web browser?
Yes, I do. However, I also have punitively expensive internet access,
and I prefer to download
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?
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?
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
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
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
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 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 reversed
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
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,
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
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 * *
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
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
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
[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
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
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 Z39.47-1985 and ISO
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
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.
Jim Allan
34 matches
Mail list logo
