Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Additional diacritics (was: Phonological equivalent of...)

From:Eric Christopherson <rakko@...>
Date:Sunday, February 11, 2007, 6:31
On Feb 10, 2007, at 6:30 PM, T. A. McLeay wrote:

> On 11/02/07, Eric Christopherson <rakko@...> wrote: > >> Off topic: I have looked but haven't found any Unicode character for >> a specifically seriffed <a>, i.e. the symbol for /a/. In the font I >> use for email, the regular ASCII <a> looks identical to the "script >> <a>", both looking like the symbol for /A/. Since I assume the actual >> shape of the <a> glyph is up to the font designer, I would figure >> Unicode would have a slot somewhere for an <a> unambiguously with >> serif. Does anyone know if it in fact does? If not, has there been >> any proposal or discussion to include one? > > No, there is no such glyph, and there's no chance of it being > included. Just like Chinese vs Japanese fonts, if you need a glyph to > look a particular way, you have to use a font that makes it look that > way.
I understand that if two glyphs are just variant representations of one character, Unicode leaves the representation up to the font itself; but with script vs. print <a>, they seem to be clearly two different *characters* with different functions within IPA. (After all, if they weren't, we wouldn't even have the script <a> character.)
> (This is a bit different from the IPA script g vs regular g, > because a single document will (non-contrastively) mix the two. But > now that the IPA sanctions regular g with the IPA, I very much suspect > that if Unicode was created today and didn't need to be backwards > compatible with anything, it wouldn't contrast the two, in the same > way it doesn't contrast Greek vs IPA beta.)
What was the original rationale for the <g> used in IPA? I'm glad to hear that we can now use a "normal" <g>. (I forgot to mention, also, that <ae> ligature and <oe> ligature in this font look indistinguishable at normal size, although if I zoom in far enough I can see a slight difference. I've also seen that in italics in printed text. Perhaps I should change my font, but otherwise I really like this one.)

Reply

T. A. McLeay <relay@...>