On 2002.09.26, 16:10, Robert Lloyd Wheelock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The proper encoding of those letters is with *cedilla* (yup�the French > kind. . .); thus, c-cedilla, g-cedilla, s-cedilla, t-cedilla, and so > on! I tend to agree with you, especially since I'm a native speaker (and reader) of a language whose orthography incudes a quite unconspicuous c-cedilla -- and I know quite well how in Portuguese (and also in French) c-comma is (or actually used to be) the "poor relative" of the typographically correct c-cedilla, both being, of course, semantically identical. However, and though I suspect that the Turkish / Romanian / Gagauz problem with cedillas vs. commas-bellow in "t", "c" and "s" stemms form the same situation (poor typographical resources in Romania), I'm sure Michael Everson and the others have studied the case much more deeply than I and therefore the situation might not be *that* simple. (If you say that the Unicode name "x-cedilla" should really always have an "associated reference glyph" showing a cedilla, remember that the Unicode name of 1930-1940 Kyrghyz letter "gh" is actuall "io", and weep -- and weep more since Unicode names, however incorrect, are strangely unchangable...) P.S.: And why is the english name "cedilla", an unequivocably spanish word, when there's no cedillas in Spanish? (OTOH, Spanish-speaking people call "tilde" the acute accent mark, while the thing they put on top of some "n"s lack a vernacular name...) -- ____. Ant�nio MARTINS-Tuv�lkin | ()| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |####| R. Laureano de Oliveira, 64 r/c esq. | PT-1885-050 MOSCAVIDE (LRS) N�o me invejo de quem tem | +351 917 511 549 carros, parelhas e montes | http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/bandeira/ s� me invejo de quem bebe | http://pagina.de/bandeiras/ a �gua em todas as fontes |
