At 10:29 -0600 2002-03-08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Jim Agenbroad responded (off list): > >> Not quite. On page 214 of 3.0 there is one RA vowel, a halant and a >RI > >vowel: RA(d) + RI(n) --> RI(n) +RA(sup) ( parens in lieu ofsubscript) > >I didn't realise that "RI" meant the vocalic R. I mistook it to mean >something else. I find it a weakness of that section that such notations >are not defined and prominently displayed in an easy-to-find location.
Actually, I would like to see that written R with dot below. We should use decent transliteration in those notations; why not? -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
