At 18:10 -0800 2004-02-17, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> It is too late for that, Ken. Sorry. Indo-Europeanists have
requirements just as real as Uralicists did. And having some subscripts available but not the rest isn't acceptable. Why would it be?
Because the concept of "the rest" is ill-defined.
See N2705? But there's a schwa too; Debbie is getting the reference but didn't have it before the last UTC.
If I find references (e.g. the ones Ken and I have already given) with the rest of the Latin alphabet and other characters used as subscripts in linguistic works, would you add these to your proposal as well? If "yes", you are accepting that "the rest" is open-ended. If "no", what makes your subscripts different from and more encodable than my subscripts? Ernest has given a reasonable criterion, but one which rules out x and /. Do you have an alternative criterion?
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
