On 9 Sep 2004 Mark Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> I wonder if you don't really mean y + circumflex, which is not in
> Latin-1.
You are absolutely right, I meant y with circumplex (this was the
reason of notation |y^|) but wrote erroneously y with acute.
> Can you not send accented characters from freemail.hu? both n+tilde (ń)
> and y+acute (ý) are standard Latin-1 characters that pass unscathed
> through even our wonky listserv software.
I use Latin-2 (Central European) codeset here. I have "y with
acute" but "n with tilde" is actually "n with acute" here.
Moreover, there were cases when my |ö|'s (o with umlaut) and |ü|'s
(u with umlaut) were replaced by they quote-printable
reprezentations |=F6| and |=FC|. Therefore I decided to avoid any
diacritics as much as possible.
> From the lack of mention of dialectical limitations I would guess that
> it is probably a feature that doesn't characterize certain dialects so
> much as appear in several; nevertheless I'm sure it is mostly limited to
> a certain subset.
I am not in the position to argue with you. But it is somehow
disturbing for me that the textbook I cited did not mention that
|y| in the given positions could be pronounced otherwise but as an
affricate |y^|. (N.B. According to the phonetical transciption, it
is not exactly the voiced pair of |ch| /tS/, rather a Spanish |y|
/j\/ starting from a plosive phase.)