On 2003.10.30, 15:48, Jim Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I offered a suggestion on cedilla and combining undercomma: <...> > One wants to find matches for Romanian and Latvian personal names or > place names or individual forms using cedilla or undercomma regardless > of the language in which they are embedded.
All this cedilla vs. undercomma reminds me of something I spotted last summer (and will have on photo ASAP): Portuguese roadsigns are usually set in a type whose cedilla glyphs are shaped like undercommas (which are less frequent than the connecting variant but nonetheless correct). A large sign at the main western road access to Miranda do Douro, Portugal's northeasternmost city, informs that if you take the road to the left out of the next roundabout you will reach the neighboring city Bragança... All this quite OK, but for some weird reason the cedilla was placed under the second "a" instead of under the "c". Now the real challenge is to try and encode this typo: someone learned in Portuguese would prefer 0042 0072 0061 0067 0061 0327 006E 0063 0061 but any other would never know and have it 0042 0072 0061 0067 0061 0326 006E 0063 0061 of course the same can be said about any correctly spelt word, but these may be checked against a dictionary and corrected -- typoes cannot. Anyway -- who ever decided that cedilla and undercomma are different things? Do they have different origins? Any language / orthography using both distinctly?... -- ____. António MARTINS-Tuválkin, | ()| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |####| R. Laureano de Oliveira, 64 r/c esq. | PT-1885-050 MOSCAVIDE (LRS) Não me invejo de quem tem | +351 934 821 700 carros, parelhas e montes | http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/bandeira/ só me invejo de quem bebe | http://pagina.de/bandeiras/ a água em todas as fontes |
