Issue 1, issues 2 & 3
Klaas.Ruppel at domlang.fi
Tue May 30 07:31:09 UTC 2000
Viesti on lähetetty myös suomeksi otsikolla "Ongelma 1, ongelmat 2 & 3".
At 15.59 +0300 26.5.2000, Erkki Kolehmainen wrote:
>I have some problem in following the rationale contained in your note.
>If a "turned u-umlaut" is indeed used in FUPA, you should propose it, since
>it clearly cannot be implemented using any available combining sequence.
>If the recommended coding would turn out to be a combining sequence of a
>"turned u" and "two points below", in order to avoid any potential conflicts
>in the future, then this would have to be translated into a modified
>proposal for a "turned u" (even if you have no requirement for such a
>stand-alone creature), as a means to achieve the end.
>If you start to throw away your legitimate requirements (for no return),
>you'll have to accept that there will be precious little left in the end.
Thank you, Erkki! It seems that we have to reconsider issue 1 in our proposal.
Many thanks to all contributors on this issue.
I'll now try to explain what issue 2 and 3 are about:
Issue 2 and 3 deal with the Greek letters used in FUPA. Some Greek
letters are part of the IPA Extensions already in the standard.
However they are called LATIN letters there and their glyphs (graphic
presentation in the standard) differ slightly from their glyphs
within the Greek alphabet.
FUPA users have to decide which one they want to use, the latinized
ones in IPA (if they exist) or the Greek ones. This question is
important even if these letters are already part of the standard,
because in FUPA these letters are used as Subscript and Superscript
A Superscript of the IPA LATIN GAMMA exists in the standard, but a
superscript of the GREEK GAMMA does not. So if the decision is to use
GREEK letters (and not IPA letters), we have to propose a Superscript
GREEK Gamma etc.
The glyphs for the Greek letters theta and phi in the Greek part of
the standard (and the glyph for Latin phi in the IPA Extensions) do
not match with what we are used to see in FUPA. Nevertheless the
shapes we are used to see in FUPA are in the standard namely in a
part called "Greek Symbols and Coptic". We believe that FUPA users
expect to see the latter ones and propose the corresponding
Superscript and Subscript version to be included in the standard.
The difference between Greek Theta and Greek Symbol Theta:
Greek Theta: a zero with a horizontal dash in the middle.
Greek Symbol Theta: a line curling from left in the form of half a
circle through the bottom, up on the right side to the top and then
forming a loop on the left side (hard to describe!).
Greek Phi: the letter consists of a ring crossed by a upright line.
Greek Symbol Phi: nearly a total circle drawn from the upper left
side down and then up to the right ending just before it would
connect to the beginning in a straight line down that crosses the
circle and goes below the writing line (hard to describe!).
If anybody can tell something about the history of those different
shapes I would be very grateful.
Also a special issue is Greek Eta. In FUPA it is used for the sound
eng. But in the standard we have already the letter ENG in the Latin
part. Due to the fact that in FUPA this letter stands for a consonant
and not for a vowel as in Greek we tend to prefer the Latin letter
Principal decisions to be made in regard to Greek letters:
A. If there is a (IPA) Latin version of the Greek letter in question
which one we choose?
B. Which ones to choose: Greek letters Theta, Phi or Greek Symbols
Theta, Phi (the latter ones have the "FUPA look")?
Your comments are welcome!
|\ |\ |\ Klaas Ruppel http://www.domlang.fi/english.html
| \| \| \ Kotus http://www.domlang.fi
| /| /| / Focis http://www.domlang.fi/svenska
|/ |/ |/ Tel. +358 9 7315 268 Fax +358 9 7315 355
More information about the Ura-list