Re: WC8 (was Re: TECH: Testing again etc.)

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:45:40 +0200, Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...> wrote:

> Paul Bennett scripsit:
>
>> One theory I was tinkering with was to use Italics instead of acutes,
>> and
>> Bold instead of under/overdot, but that's even less email-friendly.
>
> Bad idea. To represent the real thing, use plain text Unicode. For
> practical
> purposes, make ASCIIfication (in fact, you already have it).
Yes. Point taken.

>> Comments, questions?
>
> 1. Think how to use _c_ more extensively; I've found it only in digraph
> _ct_.
And č.

It's in ct because it's like k but not k. It's in č because that's
traditional.

> 2. Why use digraphs at all?
> My suggestions:
> kt > ƙ (K-wth-hook, U+0199)
> ct > ƶ (Z-with-stroke, U+01B6)
Huh? k-with-hook I can get, but whence z-with-stroke? Also, might that get
confuzing in handwriting styles that automatically cross z's?

Maybe I could go for ! as click, which is fairly traditional. I was trying
to aim for something that could ASCIIfy quite smoothly.

> lh > ľ (L-caron)
> dlh > λ (Greek lamda, U+03BB)
Why lamda? Is that a usual romanisation of that sound that I'm not aware
of?

> And, avoiding extra acutes:
> t' > ť (T-caron)
> d' > ď (D-caron)
> k' > ķ (K-cedilla)
> g' > ģ (G-cedilla)
t-caron and d-caron I can get on board with as being graphically easier on
the eye than t-acute and d-acute.

k-cedilla just doesn't inspire me

g-cedilla looks enough like g-acute that the difference is lost on me in
this font




Paul

Reply