“Čapak — Č-a-p-a-k,” the woman supplied, spelling it out. “It’s pronounced Tcháy-peck, you know, with a hacek over the C. But don’t feel you need stand on ceremony with us — just call us George […”]
1977, Selected Papers in Asian Studies (Western Conference of the Association for Asian Studies), volume 2, page 181
Therefore it is a feasible measure to use this feature to compensate for the machine’s inability to produce Chinese characters. The machine does not have any accomodation particularly designed for producing tone marks; yet we can use the diacritical marks “¯” (macron), “´” (acute), “ˇ” (hacek), and “ˋ” (grave), which are provided for on the machine, to stand for the first, second, third, and fourth tones respectively, leaving any syllable unmarked as neutral tone.
We use below a hacek ∨ (α̌, β̌, S. . .) to denote a 2 × 2 transformation matrix on the components of the vector χ, and a circumflex ∧ (Ĥ. . .) to denote operators acting on functions of the spatial coordinates.
Another orthographic practice, concerning, in particular, the Cypriot dialect, was developed even later (in the twentieth century): this is the adoption of the hacek for the representation of the Cypriot postalveolar fricatives and affricates, which are otherwise not distinguished by the normal characters of the Greek alphabet alone. It was not until very recently, therefore, that the spellings <σ̌>, <τσ̌>, <ζ̌> and <τζ̌>, for [ʃ], [ʧ], [ʒ] and [ʤ] respectively, became available, allowing for an orthographic distinction between these postalveolar sounds and their alveolar counterparts. [¶] In connection with the above, the palatalised allophones of the velars /x/ and /k/ (i.e. [ʃ] and [ʧ] or [ʤ] respectively, as we have seen earlier in this chapter) are generally (and justifiably) spelled as <χ̌> and <κ̌>, i.e. with the mark for palatalisation (the hacek in this case) added to the Greek letter in order to render the Cypriot pronunciation.
