Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> [...]
> This is just the computer-age version of the age-old question as
> to why a linguist would want to distinguish anything that functions
> differently.
>
> For years back in the late 70's and early 80's, before I got my
> first PC, I typed up index slips with a manual typewriter. That
> manual typewriter had various custom keys welded on, so that I could
> get schwas, open-o's, lambda's, dead-key commas above, and the like.
> [...]
I stop quoting here because I already collected enough instances of <'s> for
making my point...
It seems to me that a word such as "lambda's" is just an English plural noun
(also spelled "lambdas"), so it should be allowed in identifiers, it should
count as a unit for word selections, etc.
Clearly, U+0027 (APOSTROPHE, general category "Po" = other punctuation) is
not fit for this purpose, because it has the wrong category and because it
is ambiguously used as a quotation mark.
But neither U+2019 (RIGHT SINGLE *QUOTATION* MARK, general category "Pf" =
final *punctuation*) seems fit for the purpose.
So, why does the Unicode book suggest U+2019 as the preferred character for
apostrophe? Wouldn't U+02BC (MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE, general category
"Lm" = modifier letter) be a better choice?
_ Marco
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Mar 26 2002 - 06:20:32 EST