Peter_Constable@... wrote:

>
> On a few occasions in the past there has been discussion of typeforms
> involving a base character modified by some appendage that is connected,
> and it has been commented that generally it is preferable for these to be
> encoded as atomic characters rather than as base + combining mark
> combinations. I have a recollection of this being stated specifically in
> relation to characters with palatal hooks (and it should be noted that the
> one existing character with a palatal hook, 01A5 LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH
> PALATAL HOOK, does not have a decomposition).
>
> I have obtained samples showing the use of all of the following in phonetic
> transcriptions:
>
> b-palatal hook
> d-palatal hook
> f-palatal hook
> g-palatal hook
> k-palatal hook
> l-palatal hook
> m-palatal hook
> n-palatal hook
> p-palatal hook
> r-palatal hook
> s-palatal hook
> esh-palatal hook
> t-palatal hook (01A5)
> v-palatal hook
> x-palatal hook
> z-palatal hook
>
> (The z-palatal hook is also used orthographically for the Dazaga language
> of Niger, and an uppercase counterpart can be assumed also to be needed.)
>
> I am planning to prepare a proposal for adding all of these to Unicode
> (except, of course, t-palatal hook). I'm wondering if anyone has any
> comments (e.g. knows of and can provide samples of other palatal-hook
> characters).

Does it differ graphically from the nasal hook of Polish and Lithuanian?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...