mystery letter: R-grave
Anton Sherwood
What language uses it?
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
Tiro TypeWorks
>I find that I can make an R-grave in WordPerfect.
>What language uses it?
Slovak
John Hudson, Type Director
Tiro TypeWorks
Vancouver, BC
ti...@portal.ca
http://www.portal.ca/~tiro
DickWeltz
>I find that I can make an R-grave in WordPerfect.
>What language uses it?
Slovak
John Hudson, Type Director
<<
John, are you sure you don't mean the R with a hacek, not a grave?
-- Dick Weltz, Spectrum Multilanguage Communications, NYC
America's leading foreign language typesetters
<Dick...@aol.com>
(better typographer than typist, so pardon any keying errors)
Tiro TypeWorks
>>>
>>I find that I can make an R-grave in WordPerfect.
>>What language uses it?
>Slovak
>John Hudson, Type Director
><<
>John, are you sure you don't mean the R with a hacek, not a grave?
My understanding is that the R with a hacek is used in Czech, but not
in Slovak. The latter employs an R with a grave. This is based on the
listings in Peter Karow's book of digital font formats; he apparently
reproduced Berthold's list.
Brent Ermlick
: das...@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) wrote:
: >I find that I can make an R-grave in WordPerfect.
: >What language uses it?
: Slovak
I only recall an r-acute in Slovak.
--
Brent J. Ermlick (407)331-6625
br...@bermls.oau.org
Hana Skoumalova
: >I find that I can make an R-grave in WordPerfect.
: >What language uses it?
: Slovak
No, Slovak uses R-acute.
--
Hana Skoumalova Institute of Theoretical & Computational Linguistics
Charles University
Hana.Sk...@ff.cuni.cz Celetna 13, 110 00 Praha 1
+42 2 24811861, 24811870 Czech Republic
Sergio Pokrovskij
>dick...@aol.com (DickWeltz) wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>I find that I can make an R-grave in WordPerfect.
>>>What language uses it?
>
>>Slovak
>
>><<
>
>>John, are you sure you don't mean the R with a hacek, not a grave?
>
>My understanding is that the R with a hacek is used in Czech, but not
>in Slovak. The latter employs an R with a grave. This is based on the
>listings in Peter Karow's book of digital font formats; he apparently
>reproduced Berthold's list.
Slovak has no r with a grave or hacek, it has an r with an
acute (long r): m\'rtvy (=dead). Even more curious is the long
syllabic \'l, which should not be confused with the
soft l'.
Sergei B. Pokrovsky
Tiro TypeWorks
>Tiro TypeWorks (ti...@portal.ca) wrote:
>: das...@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) wrote:
>: >I find that I can make an R-grave in WordPerfect.
>: >What language uses it?
>: Slovak
>No, Slovak uses R-acute.
Oops. Yes, that is an R-acute, not an R-grave. Sorry, minor confusion
on my part, and perhaps on the part of the original posting. I suppose
this is the result of speaking and writing an unaccented language: one
easily forgets to check which is which. When I saw the original
posting I simply assumed that it referred to the Slovak diacritic R,
and forgot that this was an acute and not a grave.
DickWeltz
be aware that -- with most analog and/or crt phototypesetting systems --
the use of floating accents permitted you to combine just about any accent
with any character. That doesn't mean that the resulting combination is
necessarily used in any language.
While Slovak does use an R with acute, I don't know of any language which
uses the R with grave, even if you can make one.
Anton Sherwood
: >: >I find that I can make an R-grave in WordPerfect.
: >: >What language uses it?
: >Tiro TypeWorks (ti...@portal.ca) wrote:
: >: Slovak
: sko...@dec59.ruk.cuni.cz (Hana Skoumalova) wrote:
: >No, Slovak uses R-acute.
Tiro TypeWorks <ti...@portal.ca> says:
: Oops. Yes, that is an R-acute, not an R-grave. Sorry, minor confusion
: on my part, and perhaps on the part of the original posting. I suppose
: this is the result of speaking and writing an unaccented language: one
: easily forgets to check which is which. [...]
Well, _I_ didn't. ;) To expand a bit, WordPerfect's Character Set 1
includes these modified Rs:
168 R acute 0154 Unicode
169 r acute 0155
170 R haczek 0158
171 r haczek 0159
172 R cedilla 0156
173 r cedilla 0157
218 R grave
219 r grave
Douglas McClure
>What language uses it?
Anton,
(It's already been established that you meant R-acute.) Basque uses
R-acute and L-acute -- and you will also find the latter in the
WordPerfect character sets!
Nowadays the Basque R-acute and L-acute are usually replaced by RR and
LL. But you still see the acute-accented versions from time to time. A
bar here in San Sebastian, for example, has a (modern) sign
proclaiming its name to be "Uda-Beri-Beri" (with acute accents over
the R's). And 12 years ago I played a piece of music by Francisco
Escudero with the Basque Symphony Orchestra called "Ileta" -- with an
acute accent over the L. The piece was written, and the parts copied,
in the 1940's or 50's, I think.
I've always assumed that WordPerfect got the R-acute from the same
place as the L-acute: the Basque language. (Surely no other language
uses L-acute!?)
--
Doug McClure
(Donostia - San Sebastian, Spain)
dmcc...@sarenet.es (OR) 10002...@compuserve.com
DickWeltz
includes these modified Rs:
168 R acute 0154 Unicode
169 r acute 0155
170 R haczek 0158
171 r haczek 0159
172 R cedilla 0156
173 r cedilla 0157
218 R grave
219 r grave
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
<<
Yes, you can make an R-grave (upper or lowercase) and lots of other things
in WordPerfect, as you could with the nice floating accents we used to
have available when there were real typesetting systems.
There still isn't any non-obscure language that uses such a character,
however.
m...@pi.net
>Nowadays the Basque R-acute and L-acute are usually replaced by RR and
>LL. But you still see the acute-accented versions from time to time. A
>bar here in San Sebastian, for example, has a (modern) sign
>proclaiming its name to be "Uda-Beri-Beri" (with acute accents over
>the R's). And 12 years ago I played a piece of music by Francisco
>Escudero with the Basque Symphony Orchestra called "Ileta" -- with an
>acute accent over the L. The piece was written, and the parts copied,
>in the 1940's or 50's, I think.
>I've always assumed that WordPerfect got the R-acute from the same
>place as the L-acute: the Basque language. (Surely no other language
>uses L-acute!?)
Well, the answer this time is: Slovak :-)
Agur eta ondo ibil'i,
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Anton Sherwood
: >I find that I can make an R-grave in WordPerfect.
: >What language uses it?
: Anton,
: (It's already been established that you meant R-acute.) Basque uses
: R-acute and L-acute -- and you will also find the latter in the
: WordPerfect character sets!
Thanks, but no thanks. Are you trying to be funny? It has been
established that someone else (whoever answered Slovak) meant
R-acute; but I do know the difference, believe it or not, and
I've already said that WordPerfect offers *both* R-acute and
R-grave. (But not R-circumflex, R-umlaut or R-tilde, to answer
those who point out, rightly, that a really good typography system
allows all conceivable compositions.)
Douglas McClure
>>place as the L-acute: the Basque language. (Surely no other language
>>uses L-acute!?)
>Well, the answer this time is: Slovak :-)
Miguel,
Did you mean that Slovak also uses L-acute? or just R-acute?
Gero arte...
Douglas McClure
>includes these modified Rs:
> 168 R acute 0154 Unicode
> 169 r acute 0155
> 170 R haczek 0158
> 171 r haczek 0159
> 172 R cedilla 0156
> 173 r cedilla 0157
> 218 R grave
> 219 r grave
Anton (or anybody else),
Pardon my ignorance, but what is Unicode?
--
Doug McClure
dmcc...@sarenet.es (OR) 10002...@compuserve.com
Anton Sherwood
: Pardon my ignorance, but what is Unicode?
A two-byte code intended to cover all the world's writing systems.
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
I wasn't always anarcho-capitalist, you know.
Gerard van Wilgen
> R-grave. (But not R-circumflex, R-umlaut or R-tilde, to answer
> those who point out, rightly, that a really good typography system
> allows all conceivable compositions.)
Perhaps there is some Amazon Indian language that employs r-grave but
it seems likely that its appearance in WP (if it really does exist)
is just a mistake.
Gerard van Wilgen
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
McClure) wrote:
>Pardon my ignorance, but what is Unicode?
Unicode is the universal 16-bit character encoding that tries to take into
account all the world's major writing systems and languages. Some newer
computer operating systems are starting to support it (Newton, Windows NT,
MacOS with QuickDraw GX), and it looks like it may eventually supplant
ASCII--and not a moment too soon!
For more info, check out <http://www.unicode.org/>.
Eric Brunner Contra
: In article <49d6kf$b...@sollube.sarenet.es>, dmcc...@sarenet.es (Douglas
For a fuller discusion of writing system issues, and Unicode 1.0 and 1.1
(aka ISO 10646), tune your dial to comp.software.international and/or
comp.std.internat. What alt.gobment.lones could be I'm completely at a
loss to know<g>.
--
Kitakitamatsinopowaw (I'll see you again)
-- Eric Brunner
Douglas McClure
>
Thanks for your reply, but you just whetted my appetite! Where can I
find out more about Unicode?
Berthold K.P. Horn
In article <49d6kf$b...@sollube.sarenet.es>, dmcc...@sarenet.es (Douglas
McClure) wrote:
>Pardon my ignorance, but what is Unicode?
Unicode is the universal 16-bit character encoding that tries to take into
account all the world's major writing systems and languages. Some newer
computer operating systems are starting to support it (Newton, Windows NT,
MacOS with QuickDraw GX), and it looks like it may eventually supplant
ASCII--and not a moment too soon!
For more info, check out <http://www.unicode.org/>.
You left out AT&T Plan 9, which was the *first* OS to support UNICODE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berthold K.P. Horn
Anton Sherwood
: >A two-byte code intended to cover all the world's writing systems.
Douglas McClure <dmcc...@sarenet.es> says:
: Thanks for your reply, but you just whetted my appetite!
: Where can I find out more about Unicode?
"The Unicode Standard: Worldwide Character Encoding: Version 1.0"
in two volumes from Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-56788-1 and -60845-6.
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
Eric Brunner Contra
: : >>Pardon my ignorance, but what is Unicode?
:
: : >A two-byte code intended to cover all the world's writing systems.
:
: Douglas McClure <dmcc...@sarenet.es> says:
: : Thanks for your reply, but you just whetted my appetite!
: : Where can I find out more about Unicode?
:
: "The Unicode Standard: Worldwide Character Encoding: Version 1.0"
: in two volumes from Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-56788-1 and -60845-6.
Fairly dry reading unless one either understands the i18n issues and the
the couple of dozen pages that aren't code pages, or is really turned on
by code pages. A better pointer, IMO, is to the comp.std.internat newsgroup
or the comp.software.international newsgroup. For the nonce, at both of the
past two annual Unicode (tm) Consortium meetings, the 1.1 version of this
standard, aka ISO 10464 or Unicode 1.1, were mentioned. It sort of short
changes the interests of readers like Doug to fail to mention that we don't
have a chance in hades of getting all the world's glyphs into a two-byte
space (the Basic Multilingual Plane), but with version 1.1, and four bytes,
we're covered.
Phil Hunt
das...@netcom.com "Anton Sherwood" writes:
> Eric Brunner Contra <bru...@cup.hp.com> says:
> : . . . that we don't
> : have a chance in hades of getting all the world's glyphs into a two-byte
>
> Silly question: Why not?
Because there are more than 65,536 separate characters, presumerably.
--
Phil Hunt, phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk
Anton Sherwood
: . . . that we don't
: have a chance in hades of getting all the world's glyphs into a two-byte
: space (the Basic Multilingual Plane) . . .
Silly question: Why not?
Eric Brunner Contra
: In article <dasherDI...@netcom.com>
: das...@netcom.com "Anton Sherwood" writes:
: > Eric Brunner Contra <bru...@cup.hp.com> says:
: > : . . . that we don't
: > : have a chance in hades of getting all the world's glyphs into a two-byte
: > : space (the Basic Multilingual Plane) . . .
: >
: > Silly question: Why not?
: Because there are more than 65,536 separate characters, presumerably.
Uhh, _glyphs_, please. No point suggesting that one can't decompose characters
which contain diacriticals into fully decomposed sub-glyphs. And of course, as
whacking big chunks of the BMP are taken up by CJK, Johab, Hangul, dingbats,
maths, even wire-geo forms, not to mention private pages, there actually isn't
a lot left free at this point. See the software international standards news
groups for more, I'm not going to read every "Re: mystery letter: R-grave"
post to see if it refers to 1.0 or 1.1 or code point issues...
: --
: Phil Hunt, phi...@storcomp.demon.co.uk
Des Kenny
Try the Unicode home page at URL:
<http://www.stonehand.com/unicode.html>
Des Kenny
-- ars longa, vita brevis --
Anton Sherwood
: Unicode was never intended to be an encoding for "glyphs". It is
: merely a "character" encoding: it doesn't even reserve special "code
: points" for the characteristic Arabic isolated-initial-medial-final
: variations of the same character.
: But even a pure character encoding of ALL of the world's known writing
: systems will probably not fit in 2 bytes. Despite the fact that my
: edition of "The Unicode Standard 1.0, Vol. 1" features the Rosetta
: Stone on its front cover, neither Egyptian Hieroglyphics nor the
: Demotic Script are included in the actual encodings. [ ...etc... ]
On a related but minor point, I'm a bit surprised to see so many Indian
scripts distinguished. I'd have thought Devanagari and Bengali, at
least, could be treated as different fonts of the same alphabet, even
if each of the "fonts" is missing a few characters. (Compare Roman,
Fraktur and Irish uncial.)
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
I wasn't always anarcho-capitalist, you know. -- Ubi scriptum?
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>On Sat, 2 Dec 1995 08:31:47 GMT, Anton Sherwood wrote about
>"Re: mystery letter: R-grave":
>> Eric Brunner Contra <bru...@cup.hp.com> says:
>> : . . . that we don't
>> : have a chance in hades of getting all the world's glyphs into a two-byte
>> : space (the Basic Multilingual Plane) . . .
>> Silly question: Why not?
>First, I assume you are clear about the difference between "characters"
>(basic units of a written language) and "glyphs" (visual representations
>of characters). If you count the number of characters which exist
>within the world's various writing systems, you use up a sizeable chunk
>of the 65,000(ish) values which can be stored in 2-bytes [indeed,
>considerable effort is going into harmonising the Chinese- Japanese-
>Korean character sets to cut down the number of characters which would
>be needed if they were stored separately]. Every time someone invents a
>new font, a set of new glyphs is needed to represent the same standard
>characters. Having already exhausted most of the information content
>potential of 2-bytes, there are not enough bits left to differentiate
>between an interesting number of fonts, therefore you can't define all
>potential glyphs in 2-bytes.
>My only disagreement with Eric is that I'm not sure that 4-bytes will be
>enough either :-)
Unicode was never intended to be an encoding for "glyphs". It is
merely a "character" encoding: it doesn't even reserve special "code
points" for the characteristic Arabic isolated-initial-medial-final
variations of the same character (well, those are actually relegated
to the "compatibility zone", U+FE00->U+FFEF).
But even a pure character encoding of ALL of the world's known writing
systems will probably not fit in 2 bytes. Despite the fact that my
edition of "The Unicode Standard 1.0, Vol. 1" features the Rosetta
Stone on its front cover, neither Egyptian Hieroglyphics nor the
Demotic Script are included in the actual encodings. I don't think
this has changed for Unicode 1.1. Other ideographic (and, to a lesser
extent, syllabic) writing systems, like Cuneiform, Hittite (Luwian)
Hieroglyphic, Linear A and B, the Phaistos disk script, Maya
Hieroglyphics, the Iberian and Tartessian syllabaries, to name just a
few, would rapidly exhaust the as yet unassigned spaces (some 34,000)
in the Unicode encoding. The unified CJK symbols alone take up over
20,000 code points. I don't know how many different Egyptian
Hieroglyphic or Cuneiform symbols are known. Probably less than the
CJK total of 20,000, but also much more than the 400 or so Cuneiform
symbols that were in use by the Hittite scribes at Boghazkoy.
Four bytes, on the other hand, seems like it would be enough.
Eric Brunner Contra
: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <m...@pi.net> says:
: : Unicode was never intended to be an encoding for "glyphs". It is
: : merely a "character" encoding: it doesn't even reserve special "code
: : points" for the characteristic Arabic isolated-initial-medial-final
:
: : But even a pure character encoding of ALL of the world's known writing
: : systems will probably not fit in 2 bytes. Despite the fact that my
: : edition of "The Unicode Standard 1.0, Vol. 1" features the Rosetta
: : Stone on its front cover, neither Egyptian Hieroglyphics nor the
:
: On a related but minor point, I'm a bit surprised to see so many Indian
: scripts distinguished. I'd have thought Devanagari and Bengali, at
: least, could be treated as different fonts of the same alphabet, even
: if each of the "fonts" is missing a few characters. (Compare Roman,
: Fraktur and Irish uncial.)
You don't mind, one hopes, if the code-set types allow the non-native
speakers of a script to get their own heads... refurbished on their own.
The CJK unification was far more than enough fun, thanks. Mind, the code
pages "under-used" by such alleged "two fonts for the same code points"
are (pause while I fan through iso10646)
0900 - 097F (Devanagari)
0980 - 09FF (Bengali)
Heavens, under a page each. Who in their right minds trys to opimize a
single page use? Umm. Roman isn't a code-set. Fraktur either. Uncial?
Nope.
Eric Nedervold
>On a related but minor point, I'm a bit surprised to see so many Indian
>scripts distinguished. I'd have thought Devanagari and Bengali, at
>least, could be treated as different fonts of the same alphabet, even
>if each of the "fonts" is missing a few characters. (Compare Roman,
>Fraktur and Irish uncial.)
Yes, but as a reader of a language that uses Roman, I can still
read (without study) English when written in Fraktur or Irish
uncial. On the other hand, as a reader of Nepali, I can only guess
at some of the Bengali letters. (Some of the other Indian scripts
are easily readible to me, though.) The idea of mutual legibility of
scripts seems applicable here.
--Eric
// my opinions, not Adobe's
Tiro TypeWorks
newsgroup's many contributors that they have been able to generate
fifty postings regarding a character (or was it a glyph?) that the
majority of them don't believe to exist.
John Hudson, Type Director
Tiro TypeWorks
Vancouver, BC
ti...@portal.ca
http://www.portal.ca/~tiro
Christopher Fynn
dmcc...@sarenet.es "Douglas McClure" writes:
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is Unicode?
Unicode World Wide Character Encoding
=====================================
"The Unicode character encoding standard is a fixed-
width uniform text and character encoding scheme. It
includes characters from the world's scripts, as well
as technical symbols in common use. The Unicode
standard is modelled on the ASCII's 7-bit character
size is inadequate to handle multilingual text, the
Unicode Consortium adopted a 16-bit architecture which
extends the benefits of ASCII to multilngual text.
Unicode characters are consistently 16 bits wide,
regardless of language. Unicode character encoding
treats symbols, alphabetic characters, and ideographic
characters identically, so that they can be used
simultaneously and with equal facility."
from "The Unicode Standard: Wordwide
Character Encoding: Version 1.0,
Volume 1", The Unicode Consortium,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
1991, ISBN 0-2010-56788-1
For information please check out:
<http://www.stonehand.com/unicode.html>
- Chris
--
Christopher J Fynn <cf...@sahaja.demon.co.uk>