Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>
>
> I see exactly what I typed: single guillemets. OTOH when you Windows
> users type edhs and thorns, I see other things. Mac and Windows standard
> fonts differ.

Actually, that is probably not a font problem, it may be a difference in
the encodings...seems I recall a similar issue from a project long ago
where there were a few differences in the "upper 128". In particular, I
think the little Apple logo/icon is part of the Mac encoding and clearly
is not part of the Windows one. There could be a few other differences
too...could be an unavoidable issue without resorting to a unified
encoding...

> The greater/less than angles already
> refer to diachronic processes ("becomes"/"comes from"),so it is

> disconcerting to see them used in place of real angle brackets for
> transliterations.

Interesting! In other disciplines, various symbols are overloaded in
meaning quite often. Generally, the context makes them clear. I wonder
if there is something cognitively that linguists have in common with
each other that makes such overloading disconcerting *and* guides them
towards a career in linguistics :)

> The closest we have to real angle brackets in standard
> fonts is single-guillemets.

Not sure why you consider one closer then the other. I understand why
neither *is* an angle bracket, but I don't understand why the desire to
avoid overloading (which is reasonable) makes one character arbitrarily
"closer" then another. Can you elaborate on what the metric is you are
referring to when you say "closer"?

Best,

Barry