Quote/Cytat - David Corbett <corbett....@husky.neu.edu> (Wed 21 Dec
2016 05:56:27 PM CET):
Couldn’t you use U+1D52 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL O?
In our corpus COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER O sometimes occurs in its
combining function, it seemed more elegant to use a uniform encoding.
But you are right, in the example quoted MODIFIER LETTER SMALL O could
be also used.
Regards
Janusz
(I changed the subject line because the invisible letter proposal is not
relevant to the question about a lacuna character.)
I strongly support this. In our historical corpus of Polish
http://korpusy.klf.uw.edu.pl/en/IMPACT_GT_2/
we have in particular words ending with 'COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER
O' (U+0366).
We had to precede the character with NBSP as the vase, but to preserve
the correct segmentation into words we had to treat NBSP as a letter.
--
Prof. dr hab. Janusz S. Bień - Uniwersytet Warszawski (Katedra
Lingwistyki Formalnej)
Prof. Janusz S. Bień - University of Warsaw (Formal Linguistics Department)
jsb...@uw.edu.pl, jsb...@mimuw.edu.pl, http://fleksem.klf.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/
