On 5 January 2012 06:47, Daniel Greenhoe <dgreen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Since you are using Antykwa fonts for the newsletter, > >> I'm wondering whether you already considered to > >> ask the authors to add the glyph. > > It would make a nice Christmas gift. However, the addition called for > would really be an entire block of glyphs. Of course standard pinyin > requires four tone markers: first tone (high tone), second tone > (rising tone), third tone (low tone), and forth tone (falling tone). > And these tone markers can appear above any of the vowels a, e, i, o, > or u. So that requires a minimum support of 20 glyphs (4x5=20 ... > impressed with my math???) > Don't forget the vowel ü. My dictionary also includes the vowel ê (with the alternative spelling ei). Exceptionally, a tone can appear on the letter n, if the syllable does not contain a vowel, which, as far as I can tell applies only to the character 嗯 (which can be translated as "hmm"). > In addition, and this may only be me, but I don't like to put a tone > marker over the i because there is already an ominous dot hovering up > there and I don't like making the upper space even more crowded with > another symbol (and I don't like having the dot removed and simply > replaced with a tone marker). I'm curious, why you don't like doing this? > So that sometimes means moving the tone > marker to the space above a consonant, meaning at least some > consonants glyphs with tone markers may also be good. For example, in > ping(2) an(1) (generally meaning "peace") > where a rising tone marker is needed above the "ping", I would prefer > to put the tone marker above the "n" rather than above the "i". > Dan > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Philip TAYLOR <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > Daniel Greenhoe wrote: > > > >> Wouldn't a simple \v{u} render sufficient quality? > > > > > > Reinhard Kotucha wrote : > > > >> I suppose that the idea was to use \v{u} in order to compose the > >> glyph and am sure that you don't need LaTeX in order to achieve this. > > > > > > You are both quite correct, it almost certainly would. > > The problem is, once one starts using Unicode, one tends > > to forget the earlier TeX methods for glyph composition, > > and I certainly did in this case. However, whether \v {u} > > is really any better than ŭ is philosophically debatable : > > both are kludges, and I was really looking for a cleaner solution ! > > > >> Since you are using Antykwa fonts for the newsletter, I'm wondering > >> whether you already considered to ask the authors to add the glyph. > >> I suppose that the glyph is missing because they didn't know that you > >> need it. > > > > > > I hadn't considered that, mainly because I know just how > > busy the authors are, but I suppose I might ask if they > > could consider it in time for next year's newsletter ... > > > > ** Phil. > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex >
-------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex