Re: Off topic: type yoghs and superscript ordinals

[Emery Snyder emery.snyder@xxxxxxxx]

I used to superscript all my French ordinals using md+su for years,
and one day, I just got tired of doing it, and no one has ever
complained.

The Spanish and portuguese also have those nice superscript "a" and
"o" characters for ordinals feminine and masculine, respectively. They
are part of the Speedo characters.

The French also still like to use lots of ligatures for things like ct
and st, especially the people at Gallimard who put out the Pléiade
editions. I rather like the look, but then, I work on early modern
literature.

Unicode 3.0 includes:

021C latin capital letter yogh
021D latin small letter yogh

so if you have Windows 2000 or above (Unicode enabled) and a Unicode
font (like the free Lucida Unicode Sans) you can use it.
http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/seminar/fonts/lucida.htm


I've also got a free Unicode font called "Junicode," designed for
medievalists that has it and a lot of other useful characters with
ligatures and such:
http://www.engl.virginia.edu/OE/junicode/junicode.html

All these things depend on your fonts; if the Windows system has a
font and it all works, it should work in Word (assuming in this case
it's a Unicode-enabled version of Windows and Word).



On 31.1.2003, Patricia M Godfrey wrote:
===8<==============Original message text===============
> Do any of our linguistically learned members know if Word includes among
> its numerous special characters one for the yogh? That's the character
> used in Middle English (and Scots?) to represent "voiced and voiceless
> velar and palatal fricatives," written in modern English as "gh." It
> looks something like the number 3, which is what my author used. It
> doesn't seem to be among XyW's Speedo characters, and I figured as I
> would have to convert the paper back to Word anyway, I'd wait till I was
> there to insert it. But now I cannot find it there either.
> On a slightly similar tack, a couple of days ago, Leslie wrote:
> "an entire generation has now grown up assuming that one should
> superscript the `st' in 21st century--something that previously had not
> been seen since the end of calligraphy." Well, perhaps not in English.
> But French, as Leslie knows as well as, or better than, I do, has been
> using superscript for ordinal indicators since at least 1960. Case in
> point: The Préface to my 1960 Grand Larousse encyclopédique
> begins, "Si l'honnête homme du XX≪MD+SU≫e≪MD-SU≫ siècle..." And both
> the book I worked on for CUP and some others that I did for the Met. Mus.
> of Art about the same time were full of references to books with
> quelquechosième siècle in their titles, and all such centuries
> were written with superior e or ème when the number was
> numeralized. I rather think German supescripts the e<> of Jahrhundert
> numerals too, at least when it's not written in Franktur.
> Patricia

===8<===========End of original message text===========