<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Whatever the use case might be for each of these, the quoted
premise is simply incorrect.</p>
<p><font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">2071 ;
Super # Lm SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER I<br>
207F ; Super # Lm SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER
N<br>
107A5 ; Super # Lm MODIFIER LETTER LATIN SMALL Q<br>
</font>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">That the names of 2071 and 207F depart
from the usual pattern is simply an historical accident, based on
the original sources for the encoding. These are them, they *are*
encoded.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">BTW, 2071 and 207F have been there from
the very *first* version of Unicode. The modifer letter q only got
in very recently, based on evidence that tracked down an
appropriate example in a linguistic usage.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">--Ken</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/27/2023 4:34 AM, Daphne
Preston-Kendal via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8B4133B5-203C-4E95-A05E-83EE2C426A46@nonceword.org">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Only i n q are missing as superscript modifiers. Wouldn’t it be sensible to fill that gap at last?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
In the pronunciation alphabet devised by James Murray for the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, superscript i was used for the glide-off of the English diphthong written in the IPA as /eɪ/. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://archive.org/details/oed01arch/page/n21/mode/2up?view=theater">https://archive.org/details/oed01arch/page/n21/mode/2up?view=theater</a>
In the digital transcription of the first edition, the superscripting was done with markup tags (as was the distinction between italic and roman letters used in the Murray phonemic–phonetic transcription). Nonetheless given the significance of the OED and the otherwise comprehensive treatment of phonetic characters in Unicode, even non-/pre-IPA ones like this, I think there’s a strong case for encoding this.
Conceivably superscript n might be used in the IPA to denote a nasal consonant with ‘alveolarization’. The fact it isn’t encoded yet makes me think this is rare to nonexistent.
The corresponding process for superscript q would be uvularization, but I don’t know that using the symbol for the uvular plosive would ever be applicable here.
Daphne
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>