A.J.Mechelynck schrieb:
Andy Wokula wrote:
A.J.Mechelynck schrieb:
[...]
Note that the official transliteration of the eszett is not sz but
ss: upcase("ß") is "SS" and, in de_CH locales, the eszett is not used
(other than for "archaic" look, sometimes together with a Fraktur
font); ss is used in its stead everywhere.
IMHO "sz" is ugly, but unique. There is no upper "ß".
Best regards,
Tony.
Strictly speaking, there is no _titlecase_ ß because that letter must
always follow a vowel. There is an uppercase equivalent of ß, which is
SS, as shown by the fact that, for instance (in modern German spelling,
I'm not talking of 19-th century spelling), the uppercase counterpart of
"schließen", for use in all-caps titles, is "SCHLIESSEN", not
"SCHLIESZEN" or "SCHLIEßEN". (I've seen a German atlas printed between
1871 and 1918, where the name of Russia was spelled "RUSZLAND".) Also
I'm not talking about the Vim ~ operation here (which is not normative)
but about upcasing rules as decided by whoever decides that in
German-language countries (it used to be Duden but IIUC it isn't
anymore) and put down in the upcasing-downcasing rules which are (IIUC)
included in the Unicode Standard.
Interesting. I wasn't aware of that the rules of new german spelling
dumped the "sz" completely.
"there is no upper ß" should express that there is no non-ASCII uppercase
equivalent of "ß" that can occur in a text and needs translation into
"SS".
"sz" is unique (i.e., reversible) but since the OP doesn't want an
eszett in his text, how does reversibility concern him? "ss" is the
official graphy in Switzerland as well as wherever an ß glyph is not
available. It's true that there is no obvious "mechanical" rule (without
a dictionary, I mean) to convert Fuss to Fuß but Fluss to Fluss.
Using "ss", some words get a different meaning, e.g. "Maße" vs. "Masse".
Although in most (if not all) cases context should make it clear which
meaning applies.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
Regards,
Andy
EOM
