Onĕipŏt is not a real language.

James PuckettJames Puckett Posts: 1,536
edited April 5 in Technique and Theory
For all the type designers out there who are using Latin Plus without looking at the spec: Onĕipŏt is not a real language. According to Underware “It’s just a technical fallback (If I remember correctly it originally had a function to eventually store unintended, incorrect diacritics in the future, for technical reasons. Maybe it can be solved in a different way meanwhile)”. So stop claiming that your fonts support Onĕipŏt.

Comments

  • Chris LozosChris Lozos Posts: 1,074
    But the last half of it is spoken in Colorado and a few other states ;-)
  • Jack JenningsJack Jennings Posts: 151
    If that’s the case maybe they should remove the real-sounding writeup from their website http://www.underware.nl/latin_plus/languages/oneipot
  • James PuckettJames Puckett Posts: 1,536
    I asked them to change the name. Hopefully they do.
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,084
    edited April 5
    1: Wait, who made it up?

    2: How would changing the name help?
  • James PuckettJames Puckett Posts: 1,536
    1: Someone at Underware
    2: The new name could be something obvious, like Fallback with a legitimate description.
  • Samuil SimonovSamuil Simonov Posts: 106
    It's obviously named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing)

  • John HudsonJohn Hudson Posts: 1,376
    The name should definitely be changed. Onĕipŏt is an endonym; native speakers prefer the name Nihilartikel.
  • glukgluk Posts: 38
    quote from the description of font BelloScript at underware.nl:

    [...] ebreve is often used for words with double-meanings. For example 'Ŏnĕi' can have the meaning 'real' and 'untrue', depending on the rest of the word.

    :)

  • The name should definitely be changed. Onĕipŏt is an endonym; native speakers prefer the name Nihilartikel.

    I can only assume you meant ‘exonym’, a term for which Nihilartikelians prefer the term ‘Ŏnĕinym’, except when they don’t.
  • Kent LewKent Lew Posts: 739
    It’s just a technical fallback (If I remember correctly it originally had a function to eventually store unintended, incorrect diacritics in the future, for technical reasons.
    I think it just contains those alphabetic characters in the set that do not occur in any common languages (e.g. Ĕĕ Ŏŏ Ţţ ȷ) or are found in languages not otherwise fully supported by the rest of the set (e.g. Ạạ Ẹẹ Ẽẽ).

    The latter are used by Vietnamese, for instance; but the other accented characters required for Vietnamese are not part of this set. Similarly for Ẹẹ in Yoruba and Ẽẽ in Guaraní.

    I don’t know if that is what is meant by “unintended” or “incorrect.” And I can’t imagine what technical reason would need otherwise orphaned characters to be assigned to some dummy language.
  • joeclarkjoeclark Posts: 124

    I applaud James’ approach and tone here, which work great for anyone who adopts such approach and tone who isn’t me! Kudos &c.

Sign In or Register to comment.