Apostrophes (was: Re: ISO 639-3 changes)

[Doug Ewell]

Philip Newton wrote:

>> 4. For existing subtags, when we add a Description with a real click
>> letter, we can simultaneously "correct" any ASCII apostrophes. We
>> have already used both U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE (for
>> Gwichʼin) and U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK (for N’Ko, both
>> language and script), and I would prefer to stick to one of these
>> consistently for the African languages.
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. FWIW, I’d vote for U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER
> APOSTROPHE.

According to TUS, U+02BC is preferred over U+2019 if the character in 
question is an actual letter of the orthography, which seems to be true 
here.

U+2019 is supported in far more fonts than U+02BC. But I think the goal 
is to use the "correct" apostrophe character along with the click 
letters. As a side note, on my system I have more fonts that support 
U+02BC than the click letters, with only two fonts (Ebrima and MPH 2B 
Damase) that support click letters but not U+02BC. If you can't see the 
click letters, it doesn't really matter if you can't see the apostrophe 
either; you'll fall back to the ASCII name anyhow.

So for bundling "better" apostrophes along with the true click letters 
in Description fields like Juǀʼhoan (Ju/'hoan), as Kent Karlsson 
originally proposed, I agree with Philip that we should use U+02BC 
instead of U+2019. What does everyone else think?

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org ­