Citations:diacritical hook

English citations of diacritical hook and diacritical hooks

• 1898, Modern Language Notes (Johns Hopkins University Press), volume 13, page 50

  The following misprints have been noticed: p. r. last word: lāru for lārum; § 33, n. 3. l. 5: and in hęre for as in hęre, § 40, 3: miere for mīere; § 54, n. 2: feorōe for feorðe; § 174: onliehtan for onlīehtan, cf. § 126; the omission of the diacritical hook under the e or o in: dęhter § 37; āsęcgan § 60, d; cwęllan, § 64, e; swęre, swęriað, etc., § 80, and n. 5; sęnde, sęnd § 83, n. 6; nęmde, nęmnode, § 88, 5; gesęnded, § 89.1 b; sęcge, § 93; gǫngan, § 96, n. 4; ęlne, § 171, 3; forswęrian, § 174; wębbestre, wędlāc, § 175.

• 1947, Ernst Herzfeld, Zoroaster and His World (Princeton University Press), volume 2, page 774

  The ĥ used in ĥyōna is — like ə̄:ə, ē:e, γ:k, ǰ:č, ț:t — differentiated from hv by a diacritical hook or flourish under the letter, which makes it a sign hy, h only used before y.

• 1958, Robert W. Albright, The International Phonetic Alphabet: Its Backgrounds and Development (International Journal of American Linguistics, volume 24, № 1, part 3; Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, publication 7), page 61

  Thus, in addition to the means of representing the r colored vowel mentioned above by Jones, such “coloring” may also be represented by adding a diacritical hook to a vowel letter [ᶒ, ɚ, ᶗ], or by making use of Kenyon’s “hooked schwa” [˞].

• 1969, Hans Jensen, Sign, Symbol, and Script: An Account of Man’s Efforts to Write (3rd ed., Allen & Unwin), page 414

  Since the Sogdian, moreover, like the older Iranian dialects in general, possessed no l and reproduced this sound in foreign words in a makeshift way by r, the Uigurian had to fashion a new sign for its l-sound; it did this by furnishing the Sogdian sign for r with a little diacritical hook underneath.

• 1981, Gyula Germanus [aut.] and Gyula Wojtilla [ed.], Writings of Hungarian Islamologist Gyula Germanus (Contribution of Islam to World Civilization and Culture; Light & Life Publishers), page 157

  In the new Turkish alphabet each sound is represented by a single letter, sometimes with diacritical hooks.

• 1983, Helmut Humbach and Prods Oktor Skjærvø, The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli, part 3.2: “Commentary” (Reichert; →ISBN, 9783882261561), page 76

  Instead of Pa [Š]ME one can read [G]DE, but there is no trace of the diacritical hook below the letter.

• 1985, Elaine C. Tennant, The Habsburg Chancery Language in Perspective (Modern Philology, volume 114; University of California Press, →ISBN, part 3: “The Chancery Language of Maximilian I”, §: ‘Vocalic Marking’, page 141

  Moser is not able to isolate distinctive graphemes for the umlauted forms of /u/ and /ue/ and he warns the reader that in the spellings ú and úe the diacritical hook is not necessarily an umlaut symbol.

• 1995, William L. Hanaway and Brian Spooner, Reading Nastaʻliq: Persian and Urdu Hands from 1500 to the Present (2nd ed.; Mazda Publishers; →ISBN, 9781568590332), page 180

  7: in زیادہ, the ہ turns down and the diacritical hook touches it.

• 2000, C.M. Naim, Introductory Urdu (3rd rev. ed., National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language), volume 1, page 26

  The two medial variants in Nasta'liq differ only with regard to the presence or absence of a diacritical hook.