Philippe wrote:
For the same reason, why is the German ess-tsett (sharp S) given a
compatibility decomposition as ss instead of long-ss?
I wrote a reply which I take back. Sharp s () does NOT have ANY
decomposition in the UCD. (It has a decomposition in the data file
used as a basis for the
From: Kent Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't know. But there are instances of sharp s () that look like a
ligated
long-s () and ezh ().
We have:
02A7;LATIN SMALL LETTER TESH DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER T
ESH
but no canonical or compatibility decomposition as t + esh, even though
For the same reason, why is the German ess-tsett (sharp S) given a
compatibility decomposition as ss instead of long-ss?
Don't know. But there are instances of sharp s () that look like a
ligated
long-s () and ezh ().
That is correct.
Before a consistent spelling using was introduced,
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
We have:
02A7;LATIN SMALL LETTER TESH DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER T
ESH
but no canonical or compatibility decomposition as t + esh, even though it
is a clear ligature using the short-leg esh.
Since tesh does not mean the same thing as t followed by
Adam Twardoch scripsit:
Even today, some (rather few) users of German prefer to use the sz
compatibility decomposition rather than ss since it's far less ambiguous.
It's a minority practice, but I have seen this. sz does not occur in
normal German, while ss has orthographic differences from
Texts may use a, c. diaeresis as well as a, c. small e above
in the same text, even the same font (and there are (old) documents
that do so, even though they may use these characters interchangeably).
It is up to the author to decide which to use, not the font designer.
We had this argument
Philippe Verdy wrote:
We have:
02A7;LATIN SMALL LETTER TESH DIGRAPH;Ll;0;L;N;LATIN SMALL LETTER T
ESH
but no canonical or compatibility decomposition as t + esh, even
though it
is a clear ligature
using the short-leg esh.
I wonder why there's no VARIANT defined for the short leg ESH
on 2003-12-28 16:36 Gerd Schumacher wrote:
In German the supralinear e may be used as a variation of the diaeresis
above a, o, and u. Though it is old fashioned, indeed, it is still
understandable, and might be used for invitation cards and the like. I dont know a modern
font with it,
I wonder, when looking at the Sütterlin font, if it is not a script variant
of its own, where in German the umlaut (diaeresis) and the combining
Latin small letter e would be in fact the same diacritic. What's your
opinion about this?
Are there other languages really using combining Latin small
At 5:27 pm +0100 28/12/03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
why is the German ess-tsett (sharp S) given a
compatibility decomposition as ss instead of long-ss? What other
languages don't assume the long-s meaning for the first character of the
decomposition?
Have a look at some of Cervantes' and Montaigne's
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
I know some exceptions in proper names like Saül (which could be
written Sauel in German, but not in French where it would be read
as sau-el i.e. so-el or soël). But if this was written with
a combining e above in Sau(e)l there would not exist such false
reading
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
I would have prefered to see sharp-s replaced first by long-s + s, and then
only by s + s if long-s is not available; after all the compatibility
equivalent of long-s is the common s.
The effect of setting the compatibility decomposition to long-s + s would
have been
At 2:52 pm -0500 28/12/03, John Cowan wrote:
For the same reason, why is the German ess-tsett (sharp S) given a
compatibility decomposition as ss instead of long-ss?
Because in modern German orthography, the sharp-s is replaced by ss if
the sharp-s is not available.
Michel de Montaigne
John Delacour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2:52 pm -0500 28/12/03, John Cowan wrote:
For the same reason, why is the German ess-tsett (sharp S) given a
compatibility decomposition as ss instead of long-ss?
Because in modern German orthography, the sharp-s is replaced by ss if
the
John Delacour JD at BD8 dot COM wrote:
English practice was generally, I think, to write the long s first
but _printed_ double s is always two tall longs, certainly in the
18th century:
I thought English practice was to write all s's long except at the end
of a word, as opposed to the German
Somme additional information
1. The Umlaut
In German the supralinear e may be used as a variation of the diaeresis
above a, o, and u. Though it is old fashioned, indeed, it is still
understandable, and might be used for invitation cards and the like. I dont know a
modern
font with it, but I
Both s and long s are available for use if anyone wants to use them.
What's the problem?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
At 12:05 am +0100 29/12/03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
John Delacour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2:52 pm -0500 28/12/03, John Cowan wrote:
For the same reason, why is the German ess-tsett (sharp S) given a
compatibility decomposition as ss instead of long-ss?
Because in modern German
On 28/12/2003 16:38, Doug Ewell wrote:
John Delacour JD at BD8 dot COM wrote:
English practice was generally, I think, to write the long s first
but _printed_ double s is always two tall longs, certainly in the
18th century:
I thought English practice was to write all s's long except at
John Hudson tiro at tiro dot com wrote:
English practice was generally, I think, to write the long s first
but _printed_ double s is always two tall longs, certainly in the
18th century:
I have seen numerous examples of printed English longs+s from the 18th
century.
You would expect to, if
20 matches
Mail list logo
