On 12 Sep 2013, at 11:04, Julian Bradfield <jcb+unic...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> we have latin chi thanks to German dialectologists, and latin beta thanks >>> to Gabonese. My question is, why should they not be used for IPA ? >> >> I think they should. I will be taking this up with the Association. > > Then we have the problem that LATIN SMALL LETTER CHI seems to be (as > originally named) a stretched x, which is what the uvular fricative sign > *ought* to look like to be properly harmonious, but the IPA seems determined > that it looks like a upright greek chi - wrong stroke bias, no roman serifs > (in the current version), swung terminations to the TL-BR stroke. You > describe this in your web page, but I'm not sure what you think the reference > glyph should be: did the dialectologists use a true stretched x? I have tried > using a stretched x in my transcriptions, and I have to say it looks weird! Further clarification on this point was published in http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4296.pdf > Somehow I hadn't noticed that ʋ was there - and also bizarrely named, since > as PSG observes, it looks much more like upsilon than ʊ does. Why it was > called V WITH HOOK rather than SCRIPT V? Was it for Africanist reasons? 028A is ʊ LATIN SMALL LETTER UPSILON 028B is ʋ LATIN SMALL LETTER V WITH HOOK These are used for different sounds. I'm not sure that either name is particularly bizarre. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
