Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

[Hans Åberg]

> On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:43, Julian Bradfield <jcb+unicode at inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Linguists aren't stupid, and they have no need for plain text
> representations of all their symbology. Linguists write in Word or
> LaTeX (or sometimes HTML), all of which can produce a wide range of
> symbols beyond the wit of Unicode.
> 
> As I have remarked before, I have used "latin letter turned small
> capital K", for reasons that seemed good to me, and I was not one whit
> restrained by its absence from Unicode - nor was the journal.

It is possible to write math just using ASCII and TeX, which was the original idea of TeX. Is that want you want for linguistics?