On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:44:18 -0800, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> I received the following reply from a Zhuang researcher, which agrees
> with what Andrew has written:
...
>
> > There are two other orthographies in use in Zhuang. Most important,
> > there is an ancient Zhuang square-character script th
On 06/01/2004 03:16, Andrew C. West wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:37:30 -0800 (PST), Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Perhaps someone on the list who knows more about the actual
history of orthographic reform in the Zhuang Autonomous Region
of Guangxi could chime in with more details.
Well, I'm not
On 06/01/2004 03:16, Andrew C. West wrote:
...
I agree 100% with Ken that the Unicode letters Tone Two, Five and Six were
introduced to represent the Zhuang tones, and so they should not be hijacked for
other uses for which their glyph shapes are not quite appropriate. If the glyph
shape for U+01
On 05/01/2004 17:37, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
...
Michael Everson has asserted that U+0184/U+0185 *are* the intended
characters for the Pan-Turkic Latin alphabetic use of the Cyrillic
soft sign letter. This is at odds with the history of the Unicode
Standard and with Michael's own prior assertion
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:37:30 -0800 (PST), Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
> Perhaps someone on the list who knows more about the actual
> history of orthographic reform in the Zhuang Autonomous Region
> of Guangxi could chime in with more details.
>
Well, I'm not really that knowledgeable about Zhuang,
On 05/01/2004 17:37, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
...
So in any case we may be talking about the encoding of the
tone letters for a failed attempt at establishing a
Latin/Cyrillic hybrid orthography that failed in the late 1950's
and early 1960's in China. It is unclear to me whether the
revival of th
.
Kenneth Whistler wrote,
> Note that there are more modern representations of Zhuang that
> dispense with the special tone letters altogether and
> substitute out ordinary Latin letters, in a Pinyin-like
> simplification. See:
>
> http://www.liuzhou.co.uk/liuzhou/language.htm
>
> with a sign sh
[Doing a little cut and pasting here to coalesce the context...]
> Peter Kirk wrote,
> >
> > I note an incorrect glyph for U+0185 in Code2000 and in Arial Unicode
> > MS; this looks like b with no serif at the bottom but should be much
> > shorter, like ь, the Cyrillic soft sign.
>
James Kas
.
Michael Everson wrote,
> Well, James, I think it would be A LOT better if we got some actual
> documents from Zhuangland.
Agreed. Meanwhile...
The glyphs used in Everson Mono Terminal for U+0185 and U+044C appear
to be identical.
That's good enough for me. I'll fix things here accordingly.
On 05/01/2004 15:29, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
...
Somebody probably needs to go to Baku to dig out actual printed
materials from the 20's and 30's to make an assessment of actual
usage.
I did have a dictionary in this orthography, from about 1929, but
unfortunately I left it in Baku. I expect
On 05/01/2004 15:47, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 05/01/2004 15:29, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
...
Somebody probably needs to go to Baku to dig out actual printed
materials from the 20's and 30's to make an assessment of actual
usage.
I did have a dictionary in this orthography, from about 1929, but
un
On 05/01/2004 14:35, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 05/01/2004 14:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... With regards to U+0185, could it be
said that the informative glyph in TUS 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 is a bit
misleading, or does that glyph represent a variance from the
text(s) with which you're familiar?
Yes, yo
> >Not a good idea: the Nogai and Khakass languages appear to have used both
> >gha/oi and "i with lower right hook" according to
> >http://www.writingsystems.net/languages/nogai/nogailatin.htm and
> >http://www.writingsystems.net/languages/khakass/khakasslatin.htm .
> >
> >Charles Cox
> >
> >
>
Well, James, I think it would be A LOT better if we got some actual
documents from Zhuangland.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
On 05/01/2004 14:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Unicode Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 8:16 AM
Sub
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Unicode Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: unicode Digest V4 #3
Peter Kirk wro
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 05/01/2004 10:17, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> >>Can we leave OI/gha out of this? ...
> >
> >Certainly, but that's not me who suggested to unify the "i with bottom
right
> >hook" as a variant of "oi/gha". In fact if you read what I read, I have
> >exactly sai
"Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> May I remind you of the following, my reply to Charles, on this list
> this today:
> > Not a good idea: the Nogai and Khakass languages appear to have used
both
> > gha/oi and "i with lower right hook" according to
> > http://www.writingsystems.net/language
On 05/01/2004 10:17, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
Can we leave OI/gha out of this? ...
Certainly, but that's not me who suggested to unify the "i with bottom right
hook"
as a variant of "oi/gha". In fact if you read what I read, I have exactly
said the
opposite, because I have always thought t
On 05/01/2004 10:23, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 16:27 +0100 2004-01-05, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Why not then use the Latin ton six for all texts in that period, and
allow
glyph variants to show the I with right hook glyph used in early La
At 19:23 +0100 2004-01-05, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 16:27 +0100 2004-01-05, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>Why not then use the Latin ton six for all texts in that period, and
allow
>glyph variants to show the I with right hook glyph used in early Latin
>Az
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 16:27 +0100 2004-01-05, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> >Why not then use the Latin ton six for all texts in that period, and
allow
> >glyph variants to show the I with right hook glyph used in early Latin
> >Azeri?
>
> Because that wouldn't be right.
Ev
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 01/05/04 08:04, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> Regarding dotless-i-with hook...
>
> >and case mappings with each other. Both solutions maintains the
distinction
> >with Latin oi (gha) and with the latin soft sign (small b).
> >
> Can we leave OI/gha out
On 05/01/2004 06:22, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Peter,
I'd like to make a summary of all these letters, by using the classification
found in the alphabets image for Azeri that you sent to the list:
...
For some reason the alphabet table which I posted, and copied to
Philippe, has not appeared on th
On 05/01/2004 07:27, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 05/01/2004 05:53, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
Note that the name I gave just suggests its approximate look. It does not
necessarily mean its is semantically correct. So of course, if the only
use
On 01/05/04 08:04, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Regarding dotless-i-with hook...
and case mappings with each other. Both solutions maintains the distinction
with Latin oi (gha) and with the latin soft sign (small b).
Can we leave OI/gha out of this? Near as I can tell the *only*
relevance it has to th
At 16:27 +0100 2004-01-05, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Why not then use the Latin ton six for all texts in that period, and allow
glyph variants to show the I with right hook glyph used in early Latin
Azeri?
Because that wouldn't be right.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.everty
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 05/01/2004 05:53, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> >Note that the name I gave just suggests its approximate look. It does not
> >necessarily mean its is semantically correct. So of course, if the only
use
> >of
> >this i with lower-right hook has a b
On 05/01/2004 05:53, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
Note that the name I gave just suggests its approximate look. It does not
necessarily mean its is semantically correct. So of course, if the only use
of
this i with lower-right hook has a better traditional name, it should have a
name that matches th
Peter,
I'd like to make a summary of all these letters, by using the classification
found in the alphabets image for Azeri that you sent to the list:
sounds (phoneme) :
Latin 1923-1933; Latin 1933-1939;
Cyrillic 1939(may); Cyrillic 1939(aug)-1991;
Latin 1991 & 1992
/b/ :
Latin B; L
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I would think that the issue here is whether "i with retroflex hook
> below" is a suitable description of this character. It may be a
> reasonable match for the glyph. But this is not a mark of retroflection
> (although arguably of back articulation (cf. U+0
On 05/01/2004 05:04, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
Not a good idea: the Nogai and Khakass languages appear to have used both
gha/oi and "i with lower right hook" according to
http://www.writingsystems.net/languages/nogai/nogailatin.htm and
http://www.writingsystems.net/languages/khakass/khakasslatin.
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: unicode Digest V4 #3
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> > I maintain that if you remove the gly
On 04/01/2004 15:48, Charles Cox wrote:
Philippe Verdy wrote:
I maintain that if you remove the glyph shown for latin letter oi
(considered only as informative and not mandatory in any of its aspects),
and just keep its normative name, then many people will think that the
encoded character rea
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> I maintain that if you remove the glyph shown for latin letter oi
> (considered only as informative and not mandatory in any of its aspects),
> and just keep its normative name, then many people will think that the
> encoded character really represents a letter named or pro
35 matches
Mail list logo
