Talk:ẘ

What language uses this letter? Equinox ◑ 16:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No language I know does. Neither does Unicode give any hint. -- Liliana • 16:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC) (addendum: this letter would very likely fail verification if it were put up on RFV.)

RFV

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

ẘ

Being in Unicode is not a free pass, and this letter has to meet RFV like everything else. Since nothing I know uses it, this is very unlikely. -- Liliana • 20:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone got the enormous Unicode book that describes how/where each character is used in writing? Equinox ◑ 00:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

this? But it only mentions use for a few characters. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 00:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything in the Unicode book is online now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any information on what languages it's used in, if any, either. I can only find other sites that say they don't know, either! - -sche (discuss) 00:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, if this is a pure Unicode invention with no real world usage, there's no reason to keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't point to an actual use, but it was encoded because ISO 233 uses it as a Latin transliteration for the Arabic waw with sukun.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Woah, where did you get that gem from? It's totally missing from Wikipedia! -- Liliana • 22:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked on the Unicode list, and someone who was around in 1991 looked at the paper documents. Classic "not everything is on the Internet yet" case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Lo and behold, this does note that sukuns are rarely transliterated, but that ISO-233 does use a ring above to transliterate them when necessary. - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the whole Unicode conversation, after it got featured on someone's MSDN blog. From this, we can conclude that the entire range of U+1E00-U+1E9A is used for various transliteration systems around the world (as opposed to being part of natural languages). -- Liliana • 17:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not true; ḃ and a number of other dotted characters in that range are used for the old orthography of Irish; they all map to bh, etc. in the new orthography. Another example is ẁ, used in mẁg. Those are listed in the PDF; a quick search turns up that ḻ, which is labeled as being for Indic transliteration, is being used in Seri and Lillooet and probably others (underlines being a very easy "diacritic" to add on typewriters when these orthographies were being created). All it does say is that the whole range was not in character sets that Unicode originally saw a need to map to one-to-one. A lot of them may be for transliteration, but I don't think we can conclude that for the unlabeled ones without research, and even those encoded for transliteration may see use in orthographies in natural use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, do we keep this or delete it? - -sche (discuss) 21:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I think? -- Liliana • 07:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, keep. —Angr 10:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Duly detagged. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 10:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)