Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Kent Lew


Kent Lew
Last Active
Member, Type Person
Invited by
Admin James Puckett
  • Re: Capital Eng

    If a font does indeed provide for African languages, then I think it does makes sense to have the capital “nj” form as the default, and localize for the relevant Sami languages.

    But to adequately cover African languages, one needs several less common characters — such as ɓɗɖɲƴ, just to show a few.

    Extended Latin character sets that cover the majority of European languages will easily cover three of the four Latin-using Sami languages with the simple inclusion of ŋ. If the char set is primarily aimed at that standard target, then I think it makes sense to have the “NJ” form as the default.

    If you want to provide a capital “nj” form for those few African languages that can get by with just the ŋ and not the rest of the pan-African set, I would be more inclined to make it the alternate.
  • Re: The president of Kazakhstan (or is it Qazaqstan now?) signs the latinisation edict

    And so we go from this:

    to this:

    You’re right, Ray — all that custom work adding Ұұ to extended Cyrillic fonts is probably going to dry up over the next 8 years. ;-)

  • Re: Cyrillic lowercase shha (һ) - ascending vs non-ascending

    suggests [...] that there was no upper-case shha
    but still if it can't begin a word, distinguishability between the upper- and lower- case forms is somewhat less of a priority.
    I don’t know why on earth you jumped to that conclusion!?

    Here are just a handful of words starting with һ taken randomly from the front page of the Башҡорт wikipedia site: һаулыҡ һаҡлау һәләте һәр һәм һуңғы һуғыштың — including the very common һәр “every” and һәм “and.”
  • Re: Cyrillic lowercase shha (һ) - ascending vs non-ascending

    I can understand your caution in the case of Armenian, which had its own vital script history and tradition going back centuries.

    But in the case of relatively young [post-Petrine] Cyrillic, and then even more so for amendments made in the 20th century to accommodate new phonemes and apply to new orthographies, I don’t know if the argument is as strong.

    Bear in mind that this particular character seems to come into existence only with the “Cyrillisation” (Кириллизация) of the 1930s, and only immediately after the “Romanization” (Латинисация) of the preceding decade, imposed on the various local non-Slavic languages falling under the USSR.

    My primary point is that an ascending “h-like” form seems more historically and linguistically apropos (to me now, anyway — my own “considered decision”).

    I suppose one might then choose whether to make the arch more “Cyrillic” — whatever that might mean (if it even means anything).
  • Re: Cyrillic lowercase shha (һ) - ascending vs non-ascending

    Thank you for your clarification, Stefan. I tend to agree with this.