--- John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:

> Muke Tever scripsit:
>
> > So, tangentially: Where are we proposing to put
> > the L-shaped symbol?
> > Not being part of the orthography, it doesn't
> > _actually_ belong in the Romanization. (But
> > then, this seems to be flexible; people there
> > also like to go around casing transliterations of
> > non-cased scripts; I'm just picky in that area.)

Just as Russian dictionaries almost always have an
acute accent to show the stressed syllable which is
never used in regular Russian, and the "e with dots"
which is used by some and not by others in regular
writing.

> After all, the syllabication dots don't belong to
> English orthography either, but English dictionaries
> commonly use them in headwords.

English dictionaries usually show primary and
secondary
stress too. In fact I've also been frustrated when
looking for Unicode symbols for these. Many (non-IPA)
dictionaries use what looks like a prime and a bold
prime which otherwise match perfectly is style.

On Wiktionary some users have been using the Catalan
middle dot which is fine so far. But Unicode actually
has another character designed for this job. And if we
use the middle dot in all Latin-script languages, it's
not going to work for Catalan!

My policy is to strive to do what good print diction-
aries do. There is a chicken & egg issue with Unicode
support. Many people say don't use the features until
the support comes but the people who make the support
also say it's not worth making unless people are
trying to use it. I think Wiktionary would be doing a
service to the Unicode-using community by using
these features and thus making a need for the support
to come. We already use the double combining macron
though I've never seen it work on my own computer.

Andrew Dunbar. (hippietrail)

> --
> John Cowan cowan@... www.reutershealth.com
> www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Assent may be registered by a signature, a
> handshake, or a click of a computer
> mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the
> Internet. Formality
> is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or
> even willful inaction,
> as long as it is unequivocally referable to the
> promise, may create a contract.
> --Specht v. Netscape
>

=====
http://linguaphile.sf.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl http://www.abisource.com





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com