Re: WC8 (was Re: TECH: Testing again etc.)
|From:||Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>|
|Date:||Friday, November 21, 2003, 6:28|
Paul Bennett scripsit:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:45:40 +0200, Isaac Penzev wrote:
> > 1. Think how to use _c_ more extensively; I've found it only in digraph
> > _ct_.
> And č.
Well, that resembles Kiswahili, having only _ch_, and no _c_ in native words ;)
> > 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.
Try ç (C-cedilla).
> > 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
Anyway, the final decision is up to you. Those were mere spontaneous