ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2/N2740
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 2/WG 2
PROPOSAL SUMMARY FORM TO ACCOMPANY SUBMISSIONSFOR ADDITIONS TO THE REPERTOIRE OF ISO/IEC 106461
Please fill all the sections A, B and C below.
Please read Principles and Procedures Document (P & P) from http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/principles.html for
guidelines and details before filling this form.
Please ensure you are using the latest Form from http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/summaryform.html.
See also http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/roadmaps.html for latest Roadmaps.

A. Administrative
Proposal to add additional phonetic characters to the UCS
1. Title:
2. Requester's name:
INCITS/L2, UTC, SIL International
3. Requester type (Member body/Liaison/Individual contribution): member body (L2), liaison (UTC), expert (SIL)
4. Submission date:
2004-4-19
5. Requester's reference (if applicable):
L2/04-044, L2/04-045, L2/04-046, L2/04-047
6. Choose one of the following:This is a complete proposal:
yesor,More information will be provided later:
B. Technical – General
1. Choose one of the following:a. This proposal is for a new script (set of characters):
No
Proposed name of script:
b. The proposal is for addition of character(s) to an existing block:Yes (partially)
Name of the existing block:Eight characters are to be allocated to two existing blocks: Latin
Extended-B and Phonetic Extensions. One character is to be allocated to a block approved by
WG2 for addition in Amendment 1: Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement. Sixty-fourcharacters are to be allocated to a new blocks; the proposed new block is: Phonetic Extensions
Supplement (1D80–1DBF).
2. Number of characters in proposal:
73
3. Proposed category (select one from below - see section 2.2 of P&P document):
A-Contemporary X
B.1-Specialized (small collection)
B.2-Specialized (large collection)
C-Major extinct
D-Attested extinct
E-Minor extinct
F-Archaic Hieroglyphic or Ideographic
G-Obscure or questionable usage symbols
4. Proposed Level of Implementation (1, 2 or 3) (see Annex K in P&P document):
3
Is a rationale provided for the choice?
Yes
If Yes, reference: proposal includes one combining mark5. Is a repertoire including character names provided?
Yesa. If YES, are the names in accordance with the “character naming guidelines”
Yes
in Annex L of P&P document?
b. Are the character shapes attached in a legible form suitable for review?
Yes
6. Who will provide the appropriate computerized font (ordered preference: True Type, or PostScript format) for
publishing the standard?
SIL International
If available now, identify source(s) for the font (include address, e-mail, ftp-site, etc.) and indicate the tools
used:
TrueType font is currently available from SIL International (http://scripts.sil.org/)
7. References:a. Are references (to other character sets, dictionaries, descriptive texts etc.) provided?
Yesb. Are published examples of use (such as samples from newspapers, magazines, or other sources)of proposed characters attached?
Yes
8. Special encoding issues:
Does the proposal address other aspects of character data processing (if applicable) such as input,
presentation, sorting, searching, indexing, transliteration etc. (if yes please enclose information)?
Yes: suggested character properties are included (see §D.3)
9. Additional Information:
Submitters are invited to provide any additional information about Properties of the proposed Character(s) or Script that will assist in correctunderstanding of and correct linguistic processing of the proposed character(s) or script. Examples of such properties are: Casing
information, Numeric information, Currency information, Display behaviour information such as line breaks, widths etc., Combining behaviour,
1 Form number: N2652-F (Original 1994-10-14; Revised 1995-01, 1995-04, 1996-04, 1996-08, 1999-03, 2001-05, 2001-09, 2003-11)

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 1 of 41

Spacing behaviour, Directional behaviour, Default Collation behaviour, relevance in Mark Up contexts, Compatibility equivalence and otherUnicode normalization related information. See the Unicode standard at http://www.unicode.org for such information on other scripts. Also
see http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UCD.html and associated Unicode Technical Reports for information needed for considerationby the Unicode Technical Committee for inclusion in the Unicode Standard.

C. Technical - Justification
1. Has this proposal for addition of character(s) been submitted before?
Not to WG2If YES explain proposal has been submitted to and approved by UTC; first submission to WG2
2. Has contact been made to members of the user community (for example: National Body,
user groups of the script or characters, other experts, etc.)?
Yes
If YES, with whom?
linguists
If YES, available relevant documents:
see samples in §E and references in §F
3. Information on the user community for the proposed characters (for example:
size, demographics, information technology use, or publishing use) is included?
Yes
Reference:
linguists, from several sub-disciplines (see discussion in §E and references in §F)
4. The context of use for the proposed characters (type of use; common or rare)
Characters are used in linguistic
descriptions (books, journal publications, etc.), dictionaries and similar linguistic documents. Some of thecharacters are used in many parts of the world; others are associated with particular regions of the world.
Reference:see discussion in §E and references in §F
5. Are the proposed characters in current use by the user community?
yes
If YES, where? Reference:
throughout the world; some are more common in some regions (see §E)
6. After giving due considerations to the principles in the P&P document must the proposed characters be entirelyin the BMP?
preferably, yes
If YES, is a rationale provided?
yes
If YES, reference: living characters; if possible, should be kept with other phonetic
symbols in the BMP
7. Should the proposed characters be kept together in a contiguous range (rather than being scattered)?
not req’d
8. Can any of the proposed characters be considered a presentation form of an existingnocharacter or character sequence?
If YES, is a rationale for its inclusion provided?
n/a
If YES, reference: n/a
9. Can any of the proposed characters be encoded using a composed character sequence of either
existing characters or other proposed characters?
possibly
If YES, is a rationale for its inclusion provided?
yes
If YES, reference: encoding as atomic characters is preferable; see discussion in §E.3
and §E.5.1
10. Can any of the proposed character(s) be considered to be similar (in appearance or function)
to an existing character?
The character LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH STROKE is similar inappearance to U+00A2 CENT SIGN
If YES, is a rationale for its inclusion provided?
yes
If YES, reference: see discussion in §E.5.1
11. Does the proposal include use of combining characters and/or use of composite sequences?
yes
If YES, is a rationale for such use provided?
yes
If YES, reference: one combining character is proposed; see discussion in §E.5.6
Is a list of composite sequences and their corresponding glyph images (graphic symbols)
provided?
noIf YES, reference: n/a
12. Does the proposal contain characters with any special properties such as
control function or similar semantics?
noIf YES, describe in detail (include attachment if necessary) n/a
13. Does the proposal contain any Ideographic compatibility character(s)?
no
If YES, is the equivalent corresponding unified ideographic character(s) identified? n/a
If YES, reference: n/a

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 2 of 41

D. Proposal
D.1 Character chart
The characters in this proposal have been approved for encoding by UTC, and given tentativecode-position assignments in multiple blocks. The relevant columns are shown here, withpreviously-assigned characters also shown to provide context. The characters proposed here areshown with a yellow highlight: ; characters already approved by WG2 for inclusion in
Amendment 1 (M44.1, M44.5) are shown with a green highlight: ; characters already encodedin ISO 10646:2003 and Unicode 4.0 have no highlight.
Note that there are apparent gaps left in two of the columns, at U+0237 and U+1D77–U+1D7A.
These code positions are intentionally left blank here, and have been tentatively assigned by
UTC to other characters that will be presented to WG2 in separate proposals.
The character chart is presented on a new page.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 3 of 41

023

1D6

1D9

1DA

1DB

0

Ȱ

ᵠ   





1

ȱ

ᵡ   





2

Ȳ

ᵢ







 ◌

3

ȳ

ᵣ

  





4

ȴ

ᵤ

  





5

ȵ

ᵥ









6

ȶ

ᵦ   





ᵧ

 





7

1D7

1D8





8



ᵨ

 





9



ᵩ

 





A



ᵪ

 





B

ᵫ 







C

 

   

D

  

  

E

  







F

  









1DC

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 4 of 41

D.2 Names list
Latin Extended-B
0238

1D99

LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH RETROFLEX
HOOK

1D9A

LATIN SMALL LETTER EZH WITH RETROFLEX
HOOK

1D9B

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED ALPHA≈ <super> 0252

1D9C

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL C≈ <super> 0063

LATIN SMALL LETTER DB DIGRAPH

0239

LATIN SMALL LETTER QP DIGRAPH

023A

LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH STROKE

Phonetic Extensions
1D7B

LATIN SMALL CAPITAL LETTER I WITH STROKE

1D7C

LATIN SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH STROKE

1D7D

LATIN SMALL LETTER P WITH STROKE

1D9D

1D7E

LATIN SMALL CAPITAL LETTER U WITH
STROKE

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL C WITH CURL
≈ <super> 0255

1D9E

1D7F

LATIN SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH STROKEMODIFIER LETTER SMALL ETH≈ <super> 00F0

1D9F

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL REVERSED OPEN E≈ <super> 025C

1DA0

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL F≈ <super> 0066

1DA1

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL DOTLESS J WITH
STROKE≈ <super> 025F

Phonetic Extensions Supplement
1D80

LATIN SMALL LETTER B WITH PALATAL HOOK

1D81

LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH PALATAL HOOK

1D82

LATIN SMALL LETTER F WITH PALATAL HOOK

1D83

LATIN SMALL LETTER G WITH PALATAL HOOK

1D84

LATIN SMALL LETTER K WITH PALATAL HOOK

1D85

LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH PALATAL HOOK

1DA2

1D86

LATIN SMALL LETTER M WITH PALATALHOOKMODIFIER LETTER SMALL SCRIPT G≈ <super> 0261

1DA3

1D87

LATIN SMALL LETTER N WITH PALATAL HOOK

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED H≈ <super> 0265

1D88

LATIN SMALL LETTER P WITH PALATAL HOOK

1DA4

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL I WITH STROKE≈ <super> 0268

1D89

LATIN SMALL LETTER R WITH PALATAL HOOK

1D8A

LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH PALATAL HOOK

1DA5

1D8B

LATIN SMALL LETTER ESH WITH PALATALHOOKMODIFIER LETTER SMALL IOTA
≈ <super> 0269

1DA6

1D8C

LATIN SMALL LETTER V WITH PALATAL HOOK

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL I≈ <super> 026A

1D8D

LATIN SMALL LETTER X WITH PALATAL HOOK

1DA7

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL I WITH
STROKE≈ <super> 1D7B

1DA8MODIFIER LETTER SMALL J WITH CROSSEDTAIL≈ <super> 029D

1DA9

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL L WITH RETROFLEX
HOOK≈ <super> 026D

1D8E

LATIN SMALL LETTER Z WITH PALATAL HOOK

1D8F

LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH RETROFLEX
HOOK

1D90

LATIN SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITHRETROFLEX HOOK

1D91

LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH HOOK AND
TAIL

1D92

LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH RETROFLEX
HOOK

1D93

LATIN SMALL LETTER OPEN E WITHRETROFLEX HOOK

1D94

LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED OPEN E WITHRETROFLEX HOOK

1D95

LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA WITHRETROFLEX HOOK

1D96

LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH RETROFLEXHOOK

1DAD MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED M WITHLONG LEG≈ <super> 0270

1D97

LATIN SMALL LETTER OPEN O WITHRETROFLEX HOOK

1DAE MODIFIER LETTER SMALL N WITH LEFT HOOK
≈ <super> 0272

1D98

LATIN SMALL LETTER ESH WITH RETROFLEXHOOK

1DAA MODIFIER LETTER SMALL L WITH PALATAL
HOOK≈ <super> ID85
1DAB MODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL L≈ <super> 029F
1DAC MODIFIER LETTER SMALL M WITH HOOK
≈ <super> 0271

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 5 of 41

1DAF MODIFIER LETTER SMALL N WITH RETROFLEX
HOOK≈ <super> 0273

1DB8

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL U≈ <super> 1D1C

1DB9MODIFIER LETTER SMALL V WITH HOOK
≈ <super> 028B

1DB0

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL N≈ <super> 0274

1DB1

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL BARRED O≈ <super> 0275

1DB2

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL PHI≈ <super> 0278

1DB3

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL S WITH HOOK
≈ <super> 0282

1DB4

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL ESH≈ <super> 0283

1DBD MODIFIER LETTER SMALL Z WITH CURL
≈ <super> 0291

1DB5

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL T WITH PALATAL
HOOK≈ <super> 01AB

1DBE

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL EZH≈ <super> 0292

1DBF

1DB6

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL U BAR≈ <super> 0289

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL THETA≈ <super> 03B8

1DB7

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL UPSILON≈ <super> 028A

1DBA MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED V≈ <super> 028C
1DBB

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL Z≈ <super> 007A

1DBC

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL Z WITH RETROFLEX
HOOK≈ <super> 0290

Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement
1DC2

COMBINING SNAKE BELOW

D.3 Unicode character properties
Character properties for the proposed characters should be as follows:•

U+0238–U+023A, U+1D7B–U+1D9A: All of these characters should have a generalcategory of Ll; no case mapping for these characters is proposed. Other properties
should match those of similar characters (e.g. U+0061 LATIN SMALL LETTER A).

•

U+1D9B–U+1DBF: All of the proposed characters should have a general category of Lm.
Compatibility decompositions should be as shown above. Other properties shouldmatch those of similar characters, such as U+02E1 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL L.

•

U+1DC2: This character should have a general category of Mn, and a canonicalcombining class of 230. Other properties should match those of similar characters, such
as U+0323 COMBINING DOT BELOW.

E. Other information
Supporting information for the proposed characters is presented below, organized according to
the following broad categories of characters:•

phonetic symbols with palatal hook: U+1D80–U+1D8F•

phonetic symbols with retroflex hook: U+1D8F–U+1D9A•

phonetic modifier letters: U+1D9B–U+1DBF•

other phonetic symbols: U+0238–U+023A, U+1D7B–U+1D7F, U+1DC2

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 6 of 41

E.1

Phonetic symbols with palatal hook

E.1.1

Background: transcription conventions for palatalization

In phonetic transcription, consonant letters with palatal hook are generally used to represent
consonant phonemes with palatalized articulation. Since 1989, the representation recommended
by the International Phonetic Association has been to use superscript j; that is, the UCS
character U+02B2 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL J.
Prior to 1989, however, IPA practice allowed for the use of palatal hook on consonant symbols.
The older representation is still documented in the IPA Handbook (IPA 1999),2 and is often
referred to in general books on phonetics.

Figure 1. From IPA (1949), p. 13.

Figure 2. From Catford (1988), p. 222.

Within the linguistics tradition for study of the Russian language, use of characters with palatal
hook has been common practice.

Figure 3. Consonants with palatal hook used for Russian (Boyanus and Jopson 1939, p. xxv).

2

Characters with palatal hook are not, in fact, used in that publication, however.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 7 of 41

Figure 4. Consonants with palatal hook used for Russian (Jones and Ward 1969, p. 82).

Characters with palatal hooks have been used in relation to other languages as well, however:

Figure 5. Examples of characters with palatal hook used in relation to Australian languages (Evans 1995, p. 744).

Figure 6. Examples of characters with palatal hook used in relation to African languages (Tucker 1971, p. 648).

It is in relation to Russian that the widest selection of symbols with palatal hook is used,however, and the inventory proposed here is based on the requirements for Russian. An
inspection of a reasonably representative sampling of the linguistics literature suggests that thismay be a complete inventory of required palatal-hook characters: apart from the charactersproposed here and those already encoded in the UCS (e.g. U+01AB LATIN SMALL LETTER T
WITH PALATAL HOOK), no clear attestation of any other phonetic symbols using palatal hookhas been found. There is a pair of marginal cases, c and ezh, for which use of palatal-hook forms
has not been clearly attested, but for which evidence indicates a need to encode palatal-hookforms may possibly arise in the future; these will be described below. Beyond these, however,no additional candidates for palatal-hook forms are currently known.
Various authors have used typographic approximations for palatal hook when the selection oftype available to them has not been extensive enough. This can be seen in Figure 6, above, inN2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 8 of 41

which a comma is used; others have used a cedilla:

Figure 7. Cedilla as typographic approximation of palatal hook (Clark 1983, p. xx).

One other convention used by Slavicists is to indicate palatalization using a modifier letter
apostrophe; e.g., /tʼ/. A sample following this convention can be seen in Figure 12, below.
The fact that approximations such as comma are used as a fallback when adequate type is notavailable can be seen in cases where conventions are mixed:

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 9 of 41

Figure 8. Comma as fallback approximation of palatal hook (Wade 2000, pp. 3–4).

In Figure 8, the use of true palatal-hook characters for the Russian palatalized consonants in allcases but ɡ and v demonstrate clearly that this was the author’s preferred practice forrepresenting palatalization. And it is clear from other examples involving Russian (see, forinstance, Figure 7) that ɡ-comma and v-comma are intended to represent palatalized
consonants. We can only conclude that the author did not use palatal-hook typeforms in thesetwo cases because they were not available to him.
E.1.2

Inventory of proposed palatal-hook characters

The inventory of proposed characters corresponds to palatalized consonant phones of Russian.
The most commonly-encountered palatal-hook symbols can be seen in the sample from Jonesand Ward (1969) shown in Figure 9:

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 10 of 41

Figure 9. Russian palatalized consonant phonemes (Jones and Ward 1969, p. 299).

This set of thirteen characters with palatal hook is consistently corroborated by several authors.
(Note that one of these, t-palatal hook, is already encoded in the UCS. Hence, this accounts for
twelve of the fifteen palatal-hook characters proposed.)
Other sources use additional characters with palatal hook in order to transcribe phonetic surface
forms in Russian. Thus, the occurrence of palatal-hooked variants for ɡ, esh, and x in Figure 11
below; the ɡ-palatal hook can also be seen in Figure 4 above, and the x-palatal hook is also seenin Figure 10:

Figure 10. Character x with palatal used for Russian (IPA 1949, p. 14).

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 11 of 41

Figure 11. Palatal-hook characters used for Russian (Boyanus and Jopson 1939, p. xxiv).

The inventory from Boyanus and Jopson (1939) in Figure 11 with the exception of esh-palatal
hook is corroborated by Ward (1966), by Clark (1983) (see Figure 7) and by Dawson et al (1964).
This inventory is also corroborated by Wade (2000) (see Figure 8), though that author uses the
IPA symbol esh-curl (U+0286) rather than esh-palatal hook.
E.1.3

Marginal cases: c, ezh

Some descriptions of Russian also make reference to palatalized post-alveolar voiced fricativeand voiceless affricate, as shown in Figure 12:

Figure 12. Russian palatalized consonants, including post-alveolar fricatives and affricate (Halle 1994, p. 42).

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 12 of 41

Note that, in the chart in Figure 12, the author presents a complete inventory of palatalized
consonants but is using the alternate convention of indicating palatalization by means of amodifier letter apostrophe, mentioned above. Also, this author is using the hacek diacritic torepresent post-alveolar sounds: š, ž and č rather than ʃ, ʒ and ʧ. Thus, the palatalized postalveolar voiced fricative and voiceless affricate are represented as žʼ and čʼ respectively. Thesephones are also attested using the comma representation described above:

Figure 13. Comma used as typographic approximation of palatal hook (Halle 1971, p. 52).

Again, it appears that, in such situations, the author has used a comma approximation ofpalatal-hook forms simply because adequate type that included characters with palatal hooks
was not available.
The implication of this is that, were the type available, the author might have used c-palatal
hook “” to represent the palatalized post-alveolar voiceless affricate. Also, with an author thatused ezh rather than z-hacek for the voiced post-alveolar affricate, it seems possible that ezhpalatal hook “” might have been used to represent the palatalized variant of that sound.
Potential use of c-palatal hook is also suggested from the following sample from Africanist
literature, in which c-comma is used for a palatalized consonant (Figure 6, repeated here forconvenience as Figure 14):

Figure 14. C-comma used as typographic approximation for c-palatal hook (Tucker 1971, p. 648).

In this work, the author is presenting various representations for phones of sub-Saharanlanguages. The second column of his table is labeled “I.P.A.”, and his practice in other cases ofpalatalized consonants is to use a palatal-hook form, as seen here in the case of z-palatal hook.
Thus, it appears that c-comma is being used due to a lack of type for c-palatal hook.
Therefore, in addition to those characters proposed here, there is evidence that suggests thepossibility of eventually needing to represent c-palatal hook “” and z-palatal hook “” in the
UCS. In the samples shown, however, various alternate representation conventions were used,and not the palatal-hook variants of c and z. In the absence of clear attestation for theseN2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 13 of 41

characters, therefore, they are not included in this proposal. They are documented here,
however, to show what the full extent of required palatal-hook characters might eventually be.

E.2

Phonetic symbols with retroflex hook

Twelve of the proposed characters are symbols with retroflex hook. In phonetic transcription,
the retroflex hook is used with vowel symbols and also with consonant symbols, but withslightly different functions, and with differences in usage and attestation. These two categories
are discussed separately.
E.2.1

Vowel symbols with retroflex hook

Nine of the proposed characters are vowel symbols modified with retroflex hook.
In phonetic transcription, vowel symbols with retroflex hook are generally used to representvowel phones with rhoticity (“r-colouring”). Since 1989, the representation recommended by
the International Phonetic Association has been to use the rhotic hook; that is, the UCS
characters U+025A LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA WITH HOOK and U+025D LATIN
SMALL LETTER REVERSED OPEN E WITH HOOK, and otherwise a character sequence of avowel sign followed by U+02DE MODIFIER LETTER RHOTIC HOOK.
Prior to 1989, however, IPA practice was to use a retroflex hook on vowel symbols. The older
representation is still cited in the IPA Handbook (IPA 1999):

Figure 15. Samples of symbols with retroflex hook: IPA (1999), p. 173.

Vowel symbols with retroflex hook are still occasionally used by linguists in current
publications, as seen in Figure 16:

Figure 16. Latin small i with retroflex hook: Evans (1995), p. 740.

Current publications may also use these characters for purposes of citing historic practice, as
illustrated in Figure 15.
Insofar as the current IPA recommendation is to use rhotic hook, it is suggested that theNamesList.txt file in the Unicode Character Database include an annotation to that effect.
The inventory of characters for vowel symbols proposed is that which was approved by theN2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 14 of 41

International Phonetic Association in 1946, as shown in the following figures:

Figure 17. IPA vowel symbols with retroflex hook: IPA (1946), p. 16.

Figure 18. IPA vowel symbols with retroflex hook: IPA (1946), p. 16.

An inspection of a reasonably representative sampling of the linguistics literature suggests that
this is a complete inventory: apart from the characters proposed here, no other phonetic vowel
symbols using retroflex hook have been encountered, except for the lone instance of inverted
small-capital r with retroflex hook shown in Figure 15, which is considered here to beanomalous.
E.2.2

Consonant symbols with retroflex hookThree of the proposed characters are consonant symbols modified with retroflex hook.
The character LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH HOOK AND TAIL is used to represent a
voiced retroflex implosive stop. It is not explicitly IPA-approved, but it is listed in the IPA
Handbook (IPA 1999) and is consistent with IPA conventions of using a retroflex hook to
indicate retroflexion and a hooked ascending stem to indicate implosive stops (c.f. U+0257
LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH HOOK). This speech sound is rare but is attested in at least
the Parkari language (Hoyle 2001).

Figure 19. From IPA (1999), p. 179.

Figure 20. From Laver (1994), p. 582.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 15 of 41

Figure 21. From Hoyle (2001), p. 254.

The name LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH HOOK AND TAIL is proposed rather than LATIN
SMALL LETTER D WITH HOOK AND RETROFLEX HOOK as the repetition of “hook” in thelatter is confusing, and the former provides similarities with the related characters U+0256
LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH TAIL and U+0257 LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH HOOK.
The characters LATIN SMALL LETTER ESH WITH RETROFLEX HOOK “” and LATIN
SMALL LETTER EZH WITH RETROFLEX HOOK “” are used to represent retroflex
counterparts to the palato-alveolar fricatives esh “ʃ” and ezh “ʒ”. These symbols are not IPAapproved, and their appropriateness is questioned by some linguists since the sounds
represented by esh and ezh are “usually regarded as having the blade of the tongue raised
towards the hard palate,” a gesture that would “preclude tongue tip retroflexion” (Peter
Ladefoged, personal communication). Nevertheless, these symbols are, in fact, used by somelinguists:

Figure 22. From Laver (1994), p. 559.

Figure 23. From Laver (1994), p. 560.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 16 of 41

Figure 24. From Diehl (1995), p. 1.

E.3

Representation of symbols with palatal or retroflex hooks as sequences with U+0321,
U+0322

Question 9 of section C above asks whether any of the characters can be encoded as a character
sequence. The proposed characters discussed in §E.1 and §E.2 could possibly be viewed as
sequences involving the characters U+0321 COMBINING PALATALIZED HOOK BELOW andU+0322 COMBINING RETROFLEX HOOK BELOW respectively. It is suggested that this would
be inappropriate, however, and that encoding using atomic characters is very much to bepreferred.
While combining marks in general are assumed to be applicable to arbitrary characters in a
generative manner, allowing dynamic representation of text elements such as Latin small a withbridge below, there are certain combining marks for which this is not appropriate. In particular,
the characters U+0321 COMBINING PALATALIZED HOOK BELOW and U+0322
COMBINING RETROFLEX HOOK BELOW should not be used in a productive manner.
There simply are only certain base characters that can sensibly be modified with a palatal hookor with a retroflex hook, both in a linguistic sense as well as a typographic sense. For instance, itwould be silly for both linguistic and typographic reasons to encode a character sequence< U+01AB LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH PALATAL HOOK, U+0321 COMBINING
PALATALIZED HOOK BELOW >, or a character sequence < U+0290 LATIN SMALL LETTER Z
WITH RETROFLEX HOOK, U+0322 COMBINING RETROFLEX HOOK BELOW >. In practice,there are very limited inventory of characters that are used with palatal hook or retroflex-hook
modification.
Also, whereas it is feasible to create font/rendering implementations that can productively
display sequences involving arbitrary base characters followed by a combining mark such as
U+0300 COMBINING GRAVE ACCENT using mechanisms such as glyph attachment points,
this is not feasible for U+0321 COMBINING PALATALIZED HOOK BELOW or for U+0322
COMBINING RETROFLEX HOOK BELOW: the way in which a base character is modified
using a palatal or retroflex hook is dependent on the particular base character involved. Font
implementations must assume a specific inventory of retroflex-hook forms.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 17 of 41

Thus, in terms of usage requirements and the realities of implementation, dynamic composition
using U+0321 COMBINING PALATALIZED HOOK BELOW and U+0322 COMBININGRETROFLEX HOOK BELOW is not a good choice, and should be avoided.
Note that this view is corroborated by existing characters in the UCS itself in that existing
characters such as U+01AB LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH PALATAL HOOK andU+0290 LATIN SMALL LETTER Z WITH RETROFLEX HOOK do not have any decomposition.
The combining marks U+0321 COMBINING PALATALIZED HOOK BELOW and U+0322
COMBINING RETROFLEX HOOK BELOW are not currently used in any decomposition, eventhough there are a number of potential candidates for such decompositions existing in the UCS.
Therefore, since there are good reasons why productive use of U+0321 COMBINING
PALATALIZED HOOK BELOW and U+0322 COMBINING RETROFLEX HOOK BELOW is notrecommended, and insofar as existing characters with palatal hook and retroflex hook are notconsidered presentation forms of existing sequences, it is argued that the characters proposed
here are likewise not to be considered presentation forms of existing sequences.

E.4

Phonetic modifier letters

In general, modifier letters are used in phonetic transcription to represent secondary aspects ofarticulation. Secondary articulations may involve aspects of simultaneous articulation that areconsidered to be in some sense less dominant to the basic sound (for instance, nasalized vowels
are typically conceived in terms of their oral counterparts but with the additional secondary
articulation of nasalization); or they may involve a transitional articulation of a type that mightotherwise be considered a complete speech sound in its own right but for various reasons isinterpreted by the linguist as a secondary element in a complex speech sound (for instance,
diphthongs, or nasal onset of oral stop consonants). In some situations, the recommended
transcription using the International Phonetic Alphabet would not involve a modifier letter;
thus, many of the proposed characters are not officially-approved IPA notation. Nevertheless,the use of these modifier letters is fairly commonplace among linguists, even those that
advocate the use of IPA.
The proposed modifier letters include those used in phonetic transcription to represent vowellike sounds, and those used to represent consonantal sounds. These two groups will be
discussed separately.
E.4.1

Vowel modifier letters

Vowel modifier letters are often used by linguists in transcribing diphthongs. Diphthongs are
speech sounds involving two distinct but sequentially-contiguous vocalic gestures—two vowel
targets. For instance, whereas the Spanish phoneme /e/ is typically spoken with a single vowel
target, [e], the English phoneme /e/ is very often spoken with two vowel targets, [e] and [i].
Following the conventions of IPA strictly, the English phoneme could be transcribed as [ei] or[e͡ i]. Occasionally, though, linguists will transcribe such a diphthong as [eⁱ] or [ᵉi], according towhich component is considered to be secondary—an “on-glide” or an “off-glide”:

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 18 of 41

Figure 25. Vowel modifier letters used to indicate “on-glide” or “off-glide” diphthongs (Clark and Yallop 1995, p. 35).

Vowel modifier letters are also sometimes used to transcribe syllables that have a marginallyvocalic nucleus or a vocalic nucleus of very short duration, such that the vowel component of
the syllable seems suppressed in relation to the consonantal components.
There are already a number of vowel modifier letters encoded in the UCS. Most of these wereadded in ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000 AMD2 and Unicode 4.0 and are in the Phonetic Extensions block:
1D43

ᵃ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL A

1D44

ᵄ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED A

1D45

ᵅ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL ALPHA

1D46

ᵆ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED AE

1D49

ᵉ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL E

1D4A

ᵊ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL SCHWA

1D4B

ᵋ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL OPEN E

1D4C

ᵌ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED OPEN E

1D4E

ᵎ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED I

1D52

ᵒ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL O

1D53

ᵓ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL OPEN O

1D54

ᵔ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TOP HALF O

1D55

ᵕ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL BOTTOM HALF O

1D58

ᵘ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL U

1D59

ᵙ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL SIDEWAYS U

1D5A

ᵚ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED M

2071

ⁱ

SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER I

Table 1. Vowel modifer letters already encoded in the UCS

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 19 of 41

This covers those vowel sounds that are most commonly encountered in the world’s languages.
This list does not include all vowel symbols used in phonetic transcription, however. In
principle, any vowel gesture may potentially be one of the targets in a diphthong. Ladefoged
and Maddieson (1996, p. 322) comment, “The kinds of vowels that occur as targets indiphthongs are no different from those that occur as single vowels.”
When combined with modifier letters already encoded in the UCS, the vowel modifier lettersproposed here cover most of the vowel symbols from the IPA and Americanist traditions:3

Figure 26. IPA vowels (IPA 1999, p. ix).

Figure 27. Americanist vowels (Pullum and Ladusaw 1996, p. 298).4
While IPA is increasingly prevalent, the Americanist tradition is still in use, and the use of superscripts totranscribe diphthongs may be more prevalent among those that use Americanist conventions. Some vowels
in the Americanist system use diacritics, but it is assumed that combining marks can be used in sequenceswith modifier letters as well as with other letters. Capital vowel letters are used by some in the Americanist
tradition to transcribe voiceless vocoids, but this proposal does not include modifier-letter counterparts to
Latin capital vowel letters. We are not aware at the present time of a user need for capital vowel modifier
letters in order to transcribe a voiceless, secondary component of a diphthong using Americanist
conventions.
4 There is some variation within Americanist usage. Whereas Pullum and Ladusaw show a small capital I for3

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 20 of 41

The vowel portion of the overall proposal is summarized in Table 2, which includes an index tosamples illustrating each one:

Character

Samples

1D9B

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED ALPHA

Figure 41

1D9F



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL REVERSED OPEN E

Figure 33

1DA4



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL I WITH STROKE

Figure 32, Figure 36

1DA5

ɩ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL IOTA

Figure 40

1DA6



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL I

Figure 33, Figure 39

1DA7



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL I WITH STROKE

Figure 38

1DB1

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL BARRED O

Figure 33

1DB6



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL U BAR

Figure 32

1DB7



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL UPSILON

Figure 35

1DB8

ᴜ

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL U

Figure 40

1DBA

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED V

Figure 30, Figure 36

Table 2. Proposed vowel modifer letters

The following samples serve to illustrate the use of vowel modifier letters in general totranscribe diphthongs, and also to demonstrate attestation of the vowel modifier lettersproposed. The samples will contain vowel modifier letters that are already encoded as well as
those being proposed; those already encoded will be highlighted in blue; those being proposed,in red. Note that some of these samples show modifier letters with diacritical marks; it isassumed that these diacritical marks can be encoded using combining characters.

Figure 28. Vowel modifier letters: a, schwa, u (Czaykowska-Higgins and Willett 1997, p. 408).

the front unrounded lower-high vocoid, many represent this vocoid using small iota. Also, some use a smallv with hook for the back round lower-high vocoid, rather than the small capital u shown here. Barred iota
and barred v-hook for central lower-high vowels are not used, however.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 21 of 41

Figure 29. Vowel modifier letter: schwa (Bessell 1998, p. 5).

Figure 30. Vowel modifier letter: turned v (Laver 1994, p. 560).

Figure 31. Vowel modifier letters: e, open-e, u (Malone 1999, p. 353).

Figure 32. Vowel modifier letters: i, i-bar, e, open-e, u, u-bar, o, open-o (Lojenga 1994, p. 90).

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 22 of 41

Figure 33. Vowel modifier letters: o-bar, small capital I, schwa, reversed open e (Laver 1994, p. 559).

Figure 34. Vowel modifier letter: open-o (Brink et al 1998, p. 99).

Figure 35. Vowel modifier letter: upsilon (Cruttenden 2001, p. 133).

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 23 of 41

Figure 36. Vowel modifier letters: open-e, schwa, i, i-bar, o, u, turned-v, (Wayland and Allard 2001, p. 76).

Figure 37. Vowel modifier letter: schwa (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996, p. 80).

Figure 38. Vowel modifier letter: small capital i-bar (Bailey 1985, p. xxv).

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 24 of 41

Figure 39. Vowel modifier letter: small capital i (Bailey 1985, p. xxvi).

Figure 40. Vowel modifier letters: iota, small capital u (Floyd 1981, p. 19).

Figure 41. Vowel modifier letter: small turned alpha (Floyd 1981, p. 105).

The vowel modifier letters in the following table are those that would be needed to provide
complete coverage for IPA and Americanist vowel symbols as shown in Figure 26 and Figure 27
but for which attestation has not been found.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 25 of 41



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL AE



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL REVERSED E

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL CLOSED REVERSED OPEN E

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL RAMS HORNMODIFIER LETTER SMALL O WITH STROKEMODIFIER LETTER SMALL LIGATURE OEMODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL OEMODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL U WITH STROKEMODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL Y

Table 3. Vowel modifer letters not currently proposed for encoding
E.4.2

Consonant modifier letters

Consonant modifier letters are often used to transcribe articulatory modifications that may
apply to a wide variety of consonantal sounds, such as aspiration (typically transcribed as [ʰ]) or
labialization (typically transcribed as [w]). Consonantal modifier letters can also be used totranscribe sounds that involve a secondary consonantal articulation in addition to the dominantconsonant, either simultaneously or as a transitional effect, such as a lateral release (typicallytranscribed as [ˡ]).
The most commonly-used consonant modifier letters are already encoded in the UCS. Several
others are also in use, however. The inventory that seems to be needed includes nasals (e.g. totranscribe nasal onset or release of oral stops), fricatives (for fricative release of stops),
approximants and some stops. Modifier counterparts for other symbols, such as clicks and trills,
are not required. The samples shown below demonstrate attestation of most of the proposed
inventory. The proposed consonant modifiers are listed along with an index to the samples
illustrating each one in Table 4 to Table 7.
Note that a modifier counterpart to small c is proposed. The small letter c is used to represent apalatal stop. In fact, the modifier that is attested (see Figure 48) is c-cedilla, which represents apalatal fricative. It is assumed that that a voiceless affricate with a secondary palatal fricative
component can be represented using a sequence < modifier letter small c, combining cedilla >.
This requires, though, that the modifier letter small c be encoded.
Note also that modifier letters l-palatal hook and t-palatal hook are proposed. While the use ofpalatal hook for indicating palatalization is no longer an IPA recommendation, l-palatal hook
and t-palatal hook are proposed here because they are attested, as seen in the samples.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 26 of 41

Character

Samples

1DAC

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL M WITH HOOK

Figure 45

1DAE

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL N WITH LEFT HOOK

Figure 42, Figure 43,
Figure 44, Figure 46,
Figure 47

1DAF

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL N WITH RETROFLEX HOOK

Figure 43, Figure 44

1DB0



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL N

Figure 43, Figure 44

Table 4. Proposed nasal consonant modifier letters and figures that illustrate them

Character

Samples

1D9C

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL C (base for c-cedilla)

Figure 48, Figure 52

1D9D



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL C WITH CURL

Figure 53, Figure 57

1D9E



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL ETH

Figure 49

1DA0

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL F

Figure 48, Figure 50,
Figure 58

1DA8



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL J WITH CROSSED-TAIL

Figure 49

1DB2

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL PHI

Figure 48

1DB3

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL S WITH HOOK

Figure 42, Figure 48

1DB4



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL ESH

Figure 48, Figure 51,
Figure 52, Figure 57,
Figure 58

1DBB

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL Z

Figure 49, Figure 51,
Figure 57, Figure 58

1DBC



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL Z WITH RETROFLEX HOOK

Figure 42, Figure 49

1DBD



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL Z WITH CURL

Figure 42, Figure 53,
Figure 57

1DBE

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL EZH

Figure 49, Figure 52,
Figure 58

1DBF



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL THETA

Figure 48, Figure 51,
Figure 54, Figure 55,
Figure 56

Table 5. Proposed fricative consonant modifier letters and figures that illustrate them

The only IPA fricative symbol for which attestation of a corresponding modifier letter was notfound is small h with stroke “”.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 27 of 41

Character

Samples

1DA3

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED H

Figure 59

1DA9

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL L WITH RETROFLEX HOOK

Figure 62

1DAA

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL L WITH PALATAL HOOK

Figure 62

1DAB

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL CAPITAL L

Figure 42

1DAD

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL TURNED M WITH LONG LEG

Figure 64

1DB9



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL V WITH HOOK

Figure 61

Table 6. Proposed approximant consonant modifier letters and figures that illustrate them

The only IPA approximant symbol for which attestation of a corresponding modifier letter was
not found is small turned y “”.

Character

Samples

1DA1

MODIFIER LETTER SMALL DOTLESS J WITH STROKE

Figure 53

1DA2



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL SCRIPT G

Figure 53, Figure 60

1DB5



MODIFIER LETTER SMALL T WITH PALATAL HOOK

Figure 63

Table 7. Proposed stop consonant modifier letters and figures that illustrate them

A small glottal stop modifier “” (the mirror counterpart to U+02E4 MODIFIER LETTERSMALL REVERSED GLOTTAL STOP) is also attested. Potentially, however, the modifier small
glottal stop can be unified with U+02C0 MODIFIER LETTER GLOTTAL STOP. A new characteris not proposed at this time.
In the samples below, modifiers that are already encoded will be highlighted in blue, while
those being proposed will be highlighted in red.

Figure 42. Consonant modifier letters: s-hook, z-curl, z-retroflex hook, n-lefthook, small capital L (Laver 1994, p. 559).

Figure 43. Consonant modifier letters: n-left hook, n-retroflex hook, small capital n (Laver 1994, p. 583).

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 28 of 41

Figure 44. Consonant modifier letters: n-left hook, n-retroflex hook, small capital n (Laver 1994, p. 584).

Figure 45. Consonant modifier letters: m-hook, n-left hook (Burquist 2001, p. 118).

Figure 46. Consonant modifier letter: n with left hook (Evans 1995, p. 732).

Figure 47. Consonant modifier letter: n with left hook (Pigott 1997, p. 469).

Figure 48. Consonant modifier letters: phi, f, theta, esh, s-hook, c-cedilla (Laver 1994, p. 581).

Figure 49. Consonant modifier letters: eth, z, ezh, z-retroflex hook, crossed-tail j (Laver 1994, p. 581).

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 29 of 41

Figure 50. Consonant modifier letter: f (Kraehenmann 2001, p. 139).

Figure 51. Consonant modifier letters: theta, esh, z (Laver 1994, p. 559).

Figure 52. Consonant modifier letters: esh, ezh, c-cedilla (Laver 1994, p. 364).

Figure 53. Consonant modifier letters: c-curl, script g, dotless j-stroke, z-curl (Burenhult 2001, p. 35).

Figure 54. Consonant modifier letter: theta (Hukari et al, p. 43).

Figure 55. Consonant modifier letter: theta (IPA 1999, p. 179).

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 30 of 41

Figure 56. Consonant modifier letter: theta (Gerdts 1998, p. 309).

Figure 57. Consonant modifier letters: c-curl, esh, z, z-curl (Kim 2001, p. 93).

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 31 of 41

Figure 58. Consonant modifier letters: f, esh, z, ezh (Kim 2001, p. 91).

Figure 59. Consonant modifier letter: turned h (Laver 1994, p. 365).

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 32 of 41

Figure 60. Consonant modifier letter: script g (Brewster and Brewster 1976, p. 275).

Figure 61. Consonant modifier letter: v-hook (Laver 1994, p. 323).

Figure 62. Consonant modifier letters: l-retroflex hook, l-palatal hook (Evans 1995, p. 735).

Note that there is a typographic anomaly in the sample shown in Figure 62: retroflex (rightturning) hooks have been used on the t and modifier l, but the author was clearly discussing
palatalization. What the author was intending, then, was a modifier l-palatal hook. It is not clear
whether this was merely a typographic error or an attempt to approximate the palatal hook tocompensate for an incomplete selection of type; it is clear, though, that the appropriate
character to encode in this case is modifier l-palatal hook.

Figure 63. Consonant modifier letter: t-palatal hook (Halle 1971, p. 71).

Figure 64. Consonant modifier letters: turned-m with long leg (Golston and Kehrein 1998, p. 323).

E.5
E.5.1

Other phonetic symbols
LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH STROKEThe character LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH STROKE is often used to represent a voicelessalveolar affricate, particularly by Americanist linguists.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 33 of 41

Figure 65. From Brody (1986), p. 261.

Figure 66. From Campbell (1976), p. 124.

Figure 67. From Robertson (1999), p. 457.

Note that this character has similar appearance to one of the glyph variants of U+00A2 CENT
SIGN. That character has other glyph variants, however, such as “¢”, that are not acceptable forphonetic transcription. Moreover, phonetic symbols often are adopted for orthographic uses,
potentially along with a case pair. The character properties of U+00A2 (e.g. General CategorySc) are not appropriate for phonetic characters, given that potential for orthographic use. For
these reasons, unification with U+00A2 is not recommended; a distinct character is preferable.
Also, question 9 of section C above asks whether any of the proposed characters can be encoded
as a character sequence. LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH STROKE might be conceived as
being represented as a sequence involving the overlay character U+0338 COMBINING LONG
SOLIDUS OVERLAY. It is suggested that this would be inappropriate, however, and that
encoding using an atomic character is very much to be preferred.
Apart from certain mathematical operators that decompose into sequences using this overlay
character, there is a clear precedent for Latin characters not to represent characters such as
LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH STROKE using sequences involving U+0338: there are several
Latin characters with stroke encoded in the UCS, but none of them has a decomposition
involving U+0338:

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 34 of 41

00D8

Ø

LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O WITH STROKE

00F8

ø

LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH STROKE

0141

Ł

LATIN CAPITAL LETTER L WITH STROKE

0142

ł

LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH STROKE

019B

ƛ

LATIN SMALL LETTER LAMBDA WITH STROKE

01FE

Ǿ

LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O WITH STROKE AND ACUTE

01FF

ǿ

LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH STROKE AND ACUTE

1D0C

ᴌ

LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL L WITH STROKE

Table 8. Latin characters in the UCS with diagonal stroke but no decomposition to sequences with U+0338

Therefore, insofar as existing characters with overlaid stroke are not considered presentation
forms of existing sequences, LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH STROKE likewise should not be
considered a presentation form of some existing sequence.
E.5.2

The characters LATIN SMALL LETTER DB DIGRAPH and LATIN SMALL LETTER QP DIGRAPH

These characters are used to represent labiodental stops, which are known to occur in some
Bantu languages. These characters have been used primarily by Africanists in language
descriptions, but are also attested in general works on phonetics and phonology.

Figure 68. From Doke (1950), p. 17.

Figure 69. From Guthrie (1967), p. 61.

Figure 70. From Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996), p. 18.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 35 of 41

E.5.3The character LATIN SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH STROKEThis character is used by Slavic linguists in descriptions of Russian:Figure 71. From Jones and Ward (1969), p. 81.

Figure 72. From Ward (1966), p. 3.

Figure 73. From Wade (2000), p. 2.5
E.5.4

The characters LATIN SMALL CAPITAL LETTER I WITH STROKE, LATIN SMALL CAPITAL LETTER U
WITH STROKE and LATIN SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH STROKEThe characters LATIN SMALL CAPITAL LETTER I WITH STROKE and LATIN SMALL
CAPITAL LETTER U WITH STROKE are used by some Americanist linguists to represent
central lower-high vocoids:

5

In this sample, the region of intersection where the stroke crosses the stem of the iota appears blank. This is afont / rendering error and should be ignored.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 36 of 41

Figure 74. From Pullum and Ladusaw (1996), p. 298.

Figure 75. From Bailey (1985), p. xxiii.

The barred small capital I is also used in some recent Oxford dictionaries (though with adifferent meaning), as is the barred upsilon:

Figure 76. From Upton et al (2003).

Figure 77. From Upton et al (2003).
E.5.5

LATIN SMALL LETTER P WITH STROKEIn the Americanist tradition, barred stop symbols are often used to represent fricatives, withbarred-p representing a voiceless bilabial fricative.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 37 of 41

Figure 78. From Brewster and Brewster (1976), p. 279.

Figure 79. From Campbell (1977), p. 4.

Figure 80. From Smalley (1989), p. 454.

Figure 81. From Kroeker (2001), p. 78.

Figure 82. From Parker (2001), p. 109.
E.5.6

COMBINING SNAKE BELOW

The COMBINING SNAKE BELOW is used by some in the Americanist tradition to indicate
lenis (weak) articulation.

Figure 83. From Floyd (1981), p. 117.

Figure 84. From Mills (1984), p. xxii.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 38 of 41

Figure 85. From Lengyel (1991), p. 343.

F. References
Bailey, Charles-James N. 1985. English phonetic transcription. (Summer Institute of Linguistics
Publications in Linguistics, 74.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University ofTexas at Arlington.
Bessell, Nicola J. 1998. “Local and non-local consonant-vowel interaction in Interior Salish.”Phonology 15.1–40.
Boyanus, S.C., and N.B. Jopson. 1939. Spoken Russian: A practical course. London: Sidgewick andSons.
Brewster, E. Thomas, and Elizabeth S. Brewster. 1976. Language acquisition made practical: Field
methods for language learners. Colorado Springs, CO: Lingua House.
Brink, Lars; Jørn Lund, Steffen Heger, J. Normann Jørgensen. 1991. Den Store Danske
Udtaleordbog. [Copenhagen:] Munksgaard Ordbøger.
Brody, Jill. 1986. “Repetition as a rhetorical and conversational device in Tojolobal (Mayan).”International Journal of American Linguistics 52.255-74.
Burenhult, Niclas. 2001. “Jahai phonology: A preliminary survey.” Mon-Khmer Studies 31.29–45.
Burquest, Donald A. 2001. Phonological analysis: a functional approach. 2nd edn., revised. Dallas: SIL
International.
Campbell, Lyle. 1977. Quichean linguistic prehistory. (University of California publications inlinguistics, 81.) Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Catford, J.C. 1988. A practical introduction to phonetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Clark, Ben T. 1983. Russian. 3rd edn. New York: Harper & Row.
Clark, John, and Colin Yallop. 1995. An introduction to phonetics and phonology, 2nd edn. (Blackwell
textbooks in linguistics.) Oxford: Blackwell.
Cruttenden, Alan, ed. 2001. Gimson's pronunciation of English. 6th edn. London: Arnold; and New
York: Oxford University Press.
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa, and Marie Louise Willett. 1997. “Simple syllables in Nxaʔamxcín.”International Journal of American Linguistics 63.385–411.
Dawson, Clayton L.; Charles E. Bidwell; and Assya Humesky. 1964. Modern Russian.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Diehl, Lon. 1995. “IPA phonetic symbols for describing languages of East and Southeast Asia.”
Ms.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 39 of 41

Doke, Clement M. 1950. Text-book of Zulu grammar. London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Evans, Nick. 1995. “Current issues in the phonology of Australian languages.” The handbook ofphonological theory (Blackwell handbooks in linguistics, 1), ed. by John A. Goldsmith, 723–61.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Floyd, Rick. 1981. Manual for articulatory phonetics. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Gerdts, Donna. 1998. “Mapping Halkomelem voice.” Salish languages and linguistics: theoreticaland descriptive perspectives (Trends in linguistics: studies and monographs, 107), ed. by E.
Czaykowska-Higgins and M.D. Kinkade, 305–24.
Golston, Chris, and Wolfgang Kehrein. 1998. “Mazatec onsets and nuclei.” International Journalof American Linguistics 64.311–337.
Guthrie, Malcolm. 1967. The classification of the Bantu languages. London: International African
Institute.
Halle, Morris. 1971. The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton & Co.
――. 1994. “The Russian declension: an illustration of the theory of distributed morphology.”
Perspectives in phonology (CSLI lecture notes, 51), ed. by Jennifer Cole and Charles Kisseberth,29–60. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Hoyle, Richard A. 2001. Scenarios, discourse and translation: The scenario theory of Cognitive
Linguistics, its relevance for analysing New Testament Greek and modern Parkari texts, and its
implications for translation theory. University of Surrey Roehampton PhD thesis.
Hukari, Thomas E.; Ruby Peter; and Ellen White. “Halkomelem.” Northwest coast texts(International journal of American linguistics native American text series, volume 2, number 3), ed.
By Barry F. Carlson, 33–68. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
International Phonetic Association (L’association Phonétique Internationale). 1946. “parti
administratiːv.” Le maître phonétique 85:1, p. 16–7.
――. 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jones, Daniel, and Dennis Ward. 1969. The phonetics of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kim, Hyunsoon. 2001. “A phonetically based account of phonological stop assibilation.”
Phonology 18.81–108.
Kraehenmann, Astrid. 2001. “Swiss German stops; geminates all over the word.” Phonology
18.109–45.
Kroeker, Menno. 2001. “A descriptive grammar of Nambikuara.” International Journal of
American Linguistics 67.1–87.
Ladefoged, Peter, and Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 40 of 41

Laver, John. 1994. Principles of phonetics. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics.) Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lengyel, Thomas E. 1991. “Toward a dialectology of Ixil Maya: variation across communities
and individuals.” International Journal of American Linguistics 57.330–64.
Lojenga, Constance Kutsch. 1994. Ngiti: a Central-Sudanic language of Africa. (Nilo-Saharanlinguistic analyses and documentation, 9.) Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.
Malone, Joseph L. 1999. “Some observations on the Ojibwa preverb bi.” International Journal of
American Linguistics 65.343–370.
Mills, Elizabeth. 1984. Senoufo phonology, discourse to syllable (a prosodic approach). (Summer
Institute of Linguistics publications in linguistics, 72.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics
and University of Texas at Arlington.
Parker, Steve. 2001. “On the phonemic status of [h] in Tiriyó.” International Journal of American
Linguistics 67.105–18.
Pigott, G.L. 1997. “Licensing and alignment: a conspiracy in harmony.” Phonology 14.437–77.
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and William A. Ladusaw. 1996. Phonetic symbol guide, 2nd edn. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Robertson, John S. 1999. “The history of first-person singular in the Mayan languages.”International Journal of American Linguistics 65.449–65.
Tucker, A.N. 1971. “Orthographic systems and conventions in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Current
trends in linguistics, volume 7: Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 618–
53. The Hague: Mouton.
Upton, Clive; William Kretzschmar; and Rafal Konopka. 2003. The Oxford Dictionary ofPronunciation for Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wade, Terence. 2000. A Comprehensive Russian Grammar. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ward, Dennis. 1966. Russian pronunciation illustrated. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wayland, Ratree P., and Allard Jongman. 2001. “Chanthaburi Khmer vowels: Phonetic andphonemic analyses.” Mon-Khmer Studies 31.65–82.

N2740 – Proposal to Encode Additional Phonetic Characters in the UCS

Page 41 of 41