Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit: > >> Thus, the digraph <0062>+<0068> (i.e., "bh") represents the same >> conceptual object as <1E03>. Note that, if a selection of Irish text >> is set using one convention or the other, problems with spell checkers >> will occur UNLESS there is some metadata that indicates the writing system. > > Well, unless your spelling-checker author is bright enough (as is very > likely) to handle both dot-convention and h-convention spellings. > These are not intrinsically tied to Uncial vs. Antiqua font styles, > though; one can write perfectly good Irish in Antiqua style and still > use dotted consonants.
That's my point. The differences between Roman and "Gaelic" orthographies as a whole are not intrinsically tied to font styles. Although Michael insists that it is, he also acknowledges that current spell checkers only work with the modern (Roman) orthography and that there are no spell checkers that work with the "older" orthography. Use of the dot-convention of marking lenition already necessitates that different characters must be used to represent the same phonological segments that would otherwise be represented by <cons>+"h", which would itself confound existing spell checkers. In this context, and if it's true that a spell checker could, in theory, be programmed to handle parallel encoding conventions, then why shouldn't Irish language "traditionalists" encode the i with a LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I such as <0131>? Respectively, Brian the Unspecified (who is using a Webmail application because he's away from home)
