Re: Dotless J with stroke.

Am 07.12.2007 um 18:15 schrieb John Hudson:

> Andreas St=F6tzner wrote:
>
>> 2. 025F is admittedly the basis for 0284,  its top part being defined=20
>> as
>> a =93hook=94 but NOT as an =93ascender=94. =93Hook=94 is a certain ele=
ment which=20
>> occurs a couple of times in this range. So we are entitled to suppose=20
>> that all IPA=92s hooks (blue cells, see att.) should match each other=20
>> for coherence. If than 0260, 029B and 02A0 feature hooks definitely=20
>> different from full-height crooked ascenders (e.g. 0253) than there=20
>> is no reason for dealing differently with 0284 in that respect.
>
> But you are presuming that the names define the forms, but the IPA=20
> names were developed after the fact, to describe forms already in use.=20
> The character encoded as U+0284 has always had the form of a barred=20
> esh, originally made by inverting a hooked f. As far as I'm concerned,=20
> the name is irrelevant.
>
> Further, the problem I find with your proposed form is that it defies=20
> a natural stroke construction. Even given the artificial nature of=20
> many IPA inventions, the basic test of writing is whether it can be=20
> written, and how it is most naturally written. I think you have=20
> misanalysed the construction of the 'hooktop barred dotless j' and=20
> other hook letters, because the distinction between hook forms is not=20
> between ascending and non-ascending letters but between hooks flowing=20
> into or out of main vertical stems (as in b-hook, d-hook, but also=20
> p-hook and, yes, this dotless j-hook) and hooks attached to other=20
> features of the letter (as in c-hook). In the dotless j, you have a=20
> main vertical stem, and any treatment of the hook other than flowing=20
> into that stem breaks the natural stroke pattern of the written form.
>
> John Hudson

I see the point but still wonder why then a character which is a BARRED=20
ESH by intention gets nicknamed (disnamed?) =93SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J=20
WITH STROKE AND HOOK=94 (which is a formidable glypsism).
Would we accept a naming =93LATIN SMALL LETTER BARRED LONG S=94 for what =
we=20
commonly know as being the Latin f ? That=92s it.

It=92s splendid if we folks know it better, but from a technical standard=
=20
I do expect avoiding of such oddities. It=92s surely not enough to just=20
claim a character/glyph-distinction. There must be a traceable=20
ch./glyph-*relation*.

with regards,
A:S