> Overlooked in this discussion is the fact that the revised
> orthography of 1996 introduces for the first time a systematic
> difference in pronunciation for the vowel preceding SS vs. ẞ (short
> vs. long). As users of the old orthography age out, I would not be
> surprised if the SS fallback
Hello,
am 2018-05-29 um 10:15 Uhr hat Hans Åberg geschrieben:
Duden used one in 1957, but stated in 1984 that there is no uppercase version
[1].
There used to bee two differnt orthographic dictionaries,
both called “Duden”:
► The Duden from Leipzig (DDR) had a captal “ß”, on the cover page
On 5/29/2018 12:15 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Overlooked in this discussion is the fact that the revised
orthography of 1996 introduces for the first time a systematic
difference in pronunciation for the vowel preceding SS vs. ẞ (short
vs. long). As users of the old orthography age out, I would
On Mon, 28 May 2018 16:13:43 -0600
Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
> > The effects of virama that spring to mind are:
> >
> > (a) Causing one or both letters on either side to change or combine
> > to indicate combination;
> >
> > (b) Appearing as a mark only if it
On 5/29/2018 2:46 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
I very much dislike the approach that just for the sake of
`simplistic standardization for uppercase' the use if `ẞ' should be
enforced in German. [...]
Hmm, don't see anyone calling for that in this discussion.
Well, I hear an implicit ”Great,
On Tue, 29 May 2018 07:27:21 -0700
Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> On 5/29/2018 12:49 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> > How would one know that they are misapplied? And what if the
> > author of the text has broken your rules? Are such texts never to
> > be transcribed to pukka
Richard Wordingham wrote:
>>> The effects of virama that spring to mind are:
>>>
>>> (a) Causing one or both letters on either side to change or combine
>>> to indicate combination;
>>>
>>> (b) Appearing as a mark only if it does not affect one of the
>>> letters on either side;
>>>
>>> (c)
On Tue, 29 May 2018 14:03:25 -0700
Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> In any case, Ken has answered the real underlying question: a process
> that checks whether each character in a sequence is "alphabetic" is
> inappropriate for determining whether the sequence constitutes a word.
Back in the
>> * `ß' is never used in Switzerland; it's always `ss' (and `SS').
>> [...]
>
> So the Swiss don't have that issue. What do they do for names?
Foreign names containing `ß' are treated as-is, AFAIK. It's similar
to using, say, accents in some foreign names in English.
>> For such cases,
On Mon, 28 May 2018 22:02:15 -0700
Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> On 5/28/2018 9:44 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> > One of the general principles is that combining marks inherit the
> > property of their base character.
> >
> > Normally, "inherited" should be the only property value
On Mon, 28 May 2018 21:40:49 -0700
Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> But such exceptions prove the rule, which leads back to where we
> started: the default position is that Unicode encodes a character
> identity that is not the same as encoding the concept that said
> character is used to
> On 29 May 2018, at 07:30, Asmus Freytag via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> On 5/28/2018 6:30 AM, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
>>> Unifying these would make a real mess of lower casing!
>>>
>> German has a special sign ß for "ss", without upper capital version.
>>
>>
> You may want to retract the
> The ALL-CAPS "SS" really has little to recommend it, intrinsically.
> It is de-facto a fall-back; one that competed with "SZ" as used in
> telegrams (while they still were a thing).
Well, the status of `ß' is indeed complicated, and the radical
solution used in Switzerland has certainly
> When looking for the lowercase ß LATIN SMALL LETTER SHARP S U+00DF
> in a MacOS Character Viewer, it does not give the uppercase version,
> for some reason.
Yes, and it will stay so, AFAIK. The uppercase variant of `ß' is
`SS'. `ẞ' is to be used mainly for names that contain `ß', and which
> On 29 May 2018, at 10:54, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>
> On 2018/05/29 17:15, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
>>> On 29 May 2018, at 07:30, Asmus Freytag via Unicode
>>> wrote:
>
>>> An uppercase exists and it has formally been ruled as acceptable way to
>>> write this letter (mostly an issue
On 2018/05/29 17:15, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
On 29 May 2018, at 07:30, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
An uppercase exists and it has formally been ruled as acceptable way to write
this letter (mostly an issue for ALL CAPS as ß does not occur in word-initial
position).
A./
Duden
> On 29 May 2018, at 11:17, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> When looking for the lowercase ß LATIN SMALL LETTER SHARP S U+00DF
>> in a MacOS Character Viewer, it does not give the uppercase version,
>> for some reason.
>
> Yes, and it will stay so, AFAIK. The uppercase variant of `ß' is
> `SS'.
> On 29 May 2018, at 12:55, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
>
>> If uppercasing is not common, one would think that setting it too ẞ would
>> pose no problems, no that it is available.
>
> It would, for reasons of stability.
The main point is what users of ẞ and ß would think, and Unicode to
> On 29 May 2018, at 14:47, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
>
>> The main point is what users of ẞ and ß would think, and Unicode to adjust
>> accordingly.
>
> Since users of ß would think that in the vast majority of cases, it
> ought to be uppercased to SS, I think you’re missing the main point.
On 5/29/2018 12:49 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
How would one know that they are misapplied? And what if the author of
the text has broken your rules? Are such texts never to be transcribed
to pukka Unicode?
Applying Tamil -ii (0BC0, Script=Tamil) to the Latin letter a (0061,
> If uppercasing is not common, one would think that setting it too ẞ would
> pose no problems, no that it is available.
It would, for reasons of stability.
Arthur
> The main point is what users of ẞ and ß would think, and Unicode to adjust
> accordingly.
Since users of ß would think that in the vast majority of cases, it
ought to be uppercased to SS, I think you’re missing the main point.
Arthur
On 5/29/2018 5:57 AM, Hans Åberg via
Unicode wrote:
On 29 May 2018, at 14:47, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
The main point is what users of ẞ and ß would think, and Unicode to adjust accordingly.
Since users of
On 5/29/2018 1:08 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2018 21:40:49 -0700
Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
But such exceptions prove the rule, which leads back to where we
started: the default position is that Unicode encodes a character
identity that is not the same as encoding the
24 matches
Mail list logo
