> >I agree. Furthermore, it seems to me that the laryngeal a, e, and o > >subscripts are not productive, and that it would be better to encode > >something named either LATIN LETTER CAPITAL H WITH SUBSCRIPT A or > >(better, IMHO) > >LATIN LETTER A-COLORED LARYNGEAL, and the same for the other two. > > No, the letters are productive in other contexts besides IE > laryngeals. In particular at least the Uralicists have recently > written to me thanking me for proposing the subscript o because it > turns out they need it too.
And I pointed out that subscript-a is used as a transcription for furtive patah in Hebrew. So there are sure to be more such instances for a, e, and o, in particular. It's the subscript-x and subscript-/ that I am objecting to. --Ken
