> [Original Message] > From: Deborah W. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The subscripted letters e/a/o are now adopted by many authors, and > appear, for example, in the _Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture_, ed. > by J. P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams (London and Chicago: Fitzroy > Dearborn,1997). This tome also uses the h with a subscript x, which has > also now been adopted by two new handbooks on Indo-European. (I will > track them down for examples.)
For myself, the examples already given convinced me about a, e, and o, altho the reference you provided in this post, strengthened the case for them in my opinion. I didn't think that subscript x would prove to be a problem, and the sources given here should prove sufficient. However, I must note, that no additional support for subscript / was referenced by you, and that is in my opinion the weakest of the five proposed characters. The slightly contradictory nature of the two examples in the proposal made me wonder whether it was just an author's personal shortcut and unless I'm totally misinterpreting the symbology here, the online reference you provided strengthens that belief. Or is there some difference between what was meant by "h [1] [/] [3]" and what is represented by "( h[1] | h[3] )"? If not, it looks like the authors of those two examples merely hit upon almost the same personal shortcut, one that could become a standard, but without additional examples, I'm not willing to concede that it is a standard notation. (Using [] to indicate a subscripted glyph in the above example.)
