Re: FVS for NA

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:15:10 +0000
Martin Heijdra <mheijdra@Princeton.EDU> wrote:

> Thus, the following message refers to the N. The FVS1 there always
> was defined as a *toggle*, always meaning "the first exception to the
> rule": thus, in running text, NA+FVS1 did NOT refer to a particular
> glyph, and any such assumption so is wrong (unless you completely
> change the rules). The NA has different default versions, with or
> without dot, before consonants and vowels; the FVS1 chooses the
> opposite. Thus, in running text, unlike metatext, there is no ONE
> definition of NA+FVS1: it depends on context. At least, that was the
> model chosen. Thus it is not even true to say, what is the case in
> most cases, that the FVS defines a glyph, but that whether the FVS is
> needed in running text depends on the context, and I think that is
> the assumption of many: the very shape of NA+FVS1 depends on the
> context.

Where is this toggling behaviour by FVS1 explicitly specified?  I have
find no trace of such a specification.

Additionally, where have we recorded the rules for dotting NA?  For
example, it is not clear from what Martin said that an aleph as the
initial but not the only part of a vowel symbol counts as a consonant. 

Richard.

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2015 23:14:43 UTC