Citations:diacritical hook


 * 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 3882261560, 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 0520096940, 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 1568590334, 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.