2017-03-17 18:27 GMT+01:00 Julian Bradfield <jcb+unic...@inf.ed.ac.uk>:
> If you are happy to use a typographically normal combining breve for > the unstressed syllables, you should be happy to use a typographically > normal acute accent for the stressed syllable. > You've understood the reverse! the stressed syllable in those notation uses a breve, the unstressed syllables use a slash/solidus (which many look very similar to an acute accent, but means here exactly the opposite). However using acute accents that are already used in many langauges for vowel distinctions (independantly of stress) would cause problems. It would be better to use the IPA stress mark that looks like a vertical tick just before the syllable (i.e. before its leading consonnant and not on top of its central vowel): these marks are not combining, they are regular spacing symbols. The proposal discusses about *some* specific use where symbols that look like diacritics may be used in a row just above the actual text (in that case it should not be confused with the actual accents). That's why I think this better fits with interlinear annotations (there will be some vertical margin between the notation and the text using its native diacritics, and the interlinear stress marks will align horizontally without colliding wit h the text whose diacritics would have variable placement, not aligned horizontally but depending on base letters or the presence of other diacritics). <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>