* Benct Philip Jonsson said on 2007-07-05 16:10:44 +0200
> taliesin the storyteller skrev:
> > * taliesin the storyteller said on 2007-07-03 16:27:20 +0200
> >> One letter is already used in both upppercase and
> >> lowercase. {h} the glottal fricative/approximant is not the
> >> same letter or sound as {H} the affricate /r/. {h} is
> >> something of a problem itself, being ambiguous today.
> >
> > Thanks to Babelmap I've been looking at possible
> > replacements for uppercase H: гяřħ (gamma, ja, r hachek,
> > slashed h). I'll have to make some test-sentences to see
> > what works best I think. Stay tuned.
>
> I'd recommend Һ \u04BA CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER SHHA and
> ordinary h as one upper/lower case pair and ordinary H and ʜ
> \u029C LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL H as another, causing least
> possible discontinuity compared to your current transcription.
> Too bad only that CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER SHHA is
> insufficiently distinct from lower case h in some fonts.
The small caps is insuffciently supported in fonts. I've been
damaged, too: H in natlangs now looks like a raspy sound to me
:)
> What about Ʀʀ as a distinct pair from Rr and Hh for the
> affricate? Nobody really knows what Common Scandinavian "Ʀʀ"
> really was anyway, though I bet on /r\/.
Ditto for these, I'd have to define a digraph for them even.
> "Γr" against "Rʀ" and "Hʜ" is tempting... я as a rhotic is
> just plain wrong. Sorry for that.
Ah, but it sure *looks* raspy, and stands out.
> If and only if you use š and/or ž ř may be a good choice.
I use {š} for /S/ and {ž} for /Z/.
I'll add your candidates to the "What looks best"-thread.
t.