It would be wrong. The soft dot initially did not exist ans appeared
only as a glyphic feature in some medieval calligraphy for the cursive
script). Today the presence of this soft-dot is not justified in most
languages as it carries absolutely no semantic and CAN safely be
omitted (even if
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 15:57:26 +0100
Joó Ádám a...@jooadam.hu wrote:
The
dot above i and j may be considered as a glyphic feature, but it can
also be considered as the addition of a diacritic for whtever reason.
The reason of course was typographical, but from an encoding point of
view this
On 2013-02-02, Richard Wordingham richard.wording...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 23:51:34 + (GMT)
Julian Bradfield jcb+unic...@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote:
...
But if you use a member of the Keyman family of inputs methods (I've
been using Keyman for Linux (KMFL), you can set up a
The diaeresis potentially contrasts words; it indicates a syllable
boundary, and prevents hybrids like ‘zoology’, where the vowel of the
first syllable has been infected by the 'oo'. (For actually
contrasting words, it’s vary rare - ‘coöp’ v. ‘coop’ is the best I could
come up with quickly,
These sorts of absorption rules are discussed in great detail in
Geoffrey Nunberg's The Linguistics of Punctuation, which I highly
recommend for anyone interested in this and related issues.
And sometimes there is no absorption but simply a hard constraint
against semantic
5 matches
Mail list logo
