Re: Unicode yogh?

Tr
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2001, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > Does Unicode contain a yogh, and, if so, has anyone spotted it
> > in Lucida Sans Unicode? I'm having to use an ezh, and it looks
> > a bit yucky.
>
> Indeed there is. However, LSU was designed as Unicode 1.x (I think. Maybe
> it was Unicode 2.x) but the yogh wasn't added till 3.something. It's not
> in Arial Unicode either, I don't think. Go to your favourite website at
> http://www.unicode.org/ and Unicode Charts --> Latin Extended B and you'll
> get to see where it is too (both upper and lower case versions exist).
Thanks. This is helpful.

> Apropos of Unicode, if one is using a sans serif font that doesn't have
> the hook on a l/c a, is there any way to distinguish b/s X-Sampa [a] and
> [A]?
No. The 'spectacles' <g> of most roman type faces is officially (in
IPA) an alloglyph of the script <g> of most italic faces, which is the
usual glyph used. AFAIK, the script <f> with descender, used in most
italic faces, is not an official IPA glyph, but it has no other function.
However, IPA-wise hooked <a> of most roman faces is a different
character from script <a> of most italic faces, so really while it is
definitely legitimate to equate IPA <g> with latin lowercase <g>, and
arguably legitimate to equate IPA <f> with latin lowercase <f>, latin
lowercase <a> is a different character from the IPA hook <a> character
and the IPA script-A character.

--And.