Although I've installed Bunchló, as directed by this forum's help page, I still can't see some of the characters in Ingeborg's post at FSP: An tuiseal gairmeach/The vocative case

By copying and pasting into MS-Word, I can see that the characters in question are digraphs representing lenition, eg. m with a small dot over it, instead of mh. In View Source, it is coded as & #7745. (space added after ampersand so it would print.) I know it's in Bunchlo's character set, and Bunchlo is working in all other respects.

I'm running Internet Explorer 6 SP3 on Windows XP Pro SP3. My keyboard is currently set to English (UK), but I've tried several others, including Irish, and they don't help. Which is not surprising, since keyboards are input settings and fonts (under Explorer Options) are output settings.

Would appreciate all the help I can get.

If you can't see Ingeborg's post in Bunchló, everything should be normal. She didn't code it that way.

The default Forum fonts are:

Times New Roman, Times, Arial, Unicode MS and Serif (in that order).

In order to invoke Bunchló, you need to use the following string/tag combination when posting:

\gaelach {Your Text}

That tag combination will call for the display of the bracketed text in the following fonts:

GaillimhLS, Bunchló, Bunchló Ársa and Bunchló Ársa GC (in that order).

Caoimhín

Haigh, a Chaoimhín!

quote:

In order to invoke Bunchló, you need to use the following string/tag combination when posting:
\ gaelach{Your Text

I'm familiar with the gaelach tag, but as you say, that's for posting, and in this situation, I'm not posting, I'm trying to read someone else's post.

quote:

If you can't see Ingeborg's post in Bunchló, everything should be normal. She didn't code it that way.

Does the above mean "if you can see some, but not all, of the characters in Ingeborg's post, even after you've installed Bunchlo, that's normal, neither can anybody else, because she didn't code it that way"?

If so, I rather suspected as much (that's why I included the "& #7745" bit), and I'm asking what do I have to do to see it as she coded it? After all, if no one could read it, she wouldn't code it that way, would she?

I am sorry if there are problems to read my posts. At home, I write everything in seanċló with dots and the font Gadelica.
Here I thought it better to use a latin script, but continued to use the dotted consonants and dotless i's.

I use Times New Roman 5.01, maybe older versions do not have all the subsets. I once had the same problem, when I wrote polytonic ancient greek, and for some people, there were only those terrible squares.

So we have three possibilities:

Old style

Ḃí cónaí ar ṁuintir Dursley in uiṁir a ceaṫair Privet Drive, agus é le maíoṁ acu go raiḃ siad an-normálta go deo ...

Mixed style

Ḃí cónaí ar ṁuintir Dursley in uiṁir a ceaṫair Privet Drive, agus é le maíoṁ acu go raiḃ siad an-normálta go deo ...

New style

Bhí cónaí ar mhuintir Dursley in uimhir a ceathair Privet Drive, agus é le maíomh acu go raibh siad an-normálta go deo ...

Is anyone able to read the first sample, but not the second?

I love the traditional script and convert my lessons to it, but know, that it is not usual nowadays any more. But I do not like the crowded, h-loaded look of words like chomhlacht instead of ċoṁlaċt, / ċoṁlaċt, it is the same, as if I wrote Esperanto words ŝanĝiĝi as sxangxigxi (to change). In Irish, you see the roots of the words better.

But that question is a decided battle.

I only want to know, if the old way of writing is accepted (and for everyone readable) in this community or if I should leave it a private thing.

Thanks for reactions.

Hi Ingeborg

quote:

Is anyone able to read the first sample, but not the second?

Yep, that would be me. Little squares in the mixed style. Old style clear as a bell. I like the latter a lot, and hope that you will continue to use it, because without you I never would have known that once upon a time Irish used dots to aspirate consonants instead of adding an h. Now that I know, I'd like to get accustomed to them, so that I won't be stymied if I ever come across them on old monuments when I finally get to Ireland.

Both styles read out well, but the dotted chars have different stems (by model and size) from the undotted. Like, an m without dot looks different from the m under the dot, which is also slightly larger. Is this normal?

(Message edited by curiousfinn on August 05, 2009)

quote:

Like, an m without dot looks different from the m under the dot

I think, your normal font lacks the dotted characters and substitutes them against the ones from another font, who possesses them.

On my screen m and ṁ are perfectly the same, except the dot.

Guess that is so. Don't remember if they work at all on my old desktop with Win2k, this one has XP...

Hope you don't mind a few more questions, 'cause I'd like to get to the bottom of this.

quote:

Here I thought it better to use a latin script, but continued to use the dotted consonants and dotless i's. I use Times New Roman 5.01

I'm using the US English version of XP, and I can confirm that the Times New Roman that comes with it (version 3.0) does not include dotted consonants in its character set. Vowels yes, consonants no.

When I googled "Times New Roman 5.01", all the posts were in German. My facility in that language is more than a little rusty, but it appears that version 5.01 ships with the German version of Vista. Could someone running the English-language version of Vista please advise whether they see this character Ḃ or one of those dreaded little squares?

I see it. Running Vista Home Premium SP 2.

On both Firefox and IE 8

But it is Times New Roman 5.01 that is installed here.

Ní lia ríoṁaire ná cló

quote:

I see it. Running Vista Home Premium SP 2. On both Firefox and IE 8. But it is Times New Roman 5.01 that is installed here.

OK, that's helpful to know. Can we now hear from anyone running Vista over here (which Aonghus taught me is abhur in Irish) on this -- the North American - side of The Pond?

(Abhus!)

quote:

Can we now hear from anyone running Vista over here (which Aonghus taught me is abhur abhus in Irish) on this -- the North American - side of The Pond?

Sorry, a Aonghuis! Typo.

Now on Win2k, I see the dotted consonants dotted all right with a "Gaelic" font, but sized the same as the rest of the "Latin" font. Both styles work.

I guess the "Gaelic" style font is the only one on this computer with those dotted letters, and at least Firefox substitutes it for the letters unknown to the standard font.