> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Michael Everson
> >Of course, it's an empirical question as to whether anyone else in that > >era did, in fact, adopt any of these symbols, or whether authors today > >ever use them (e.g. in citing Doke, whose work was of some importance in > >Africanist linguistics). > > It's reasonable to think that they would. Although Pullum and Ladusaw > don't show the glyphs, they refer specifically to Doke's characters > (s.v. ///). Don't you think the fact that P&L don't show them might suggest that, in fact, authors today *don't* particularly use them? I looked through many publications last year searching for attested phonetic symbols not yet encoded, and while my search wasn't specifically focused on Africanist usage, I did go through a number of Africanist items and never once saw any of these. > That Pullum and Ladusaw have not forgotten Doke's characters suggests > that Africanists will also likely not forget them, and will find use > in access to them as encoded characters in the UCS. I'm inclined to think there's probably greater likelihood that one of the few modifier letters I proposed but that weren't accepted, e.g. a MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED Y, would be used than one of Doke's idiosyncratic symbols. But, they were indeed rejected, and for now remain PUA only (supported in the Doulos SIL font). Peter Constable
