From: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin (antonio@tuvalkin.web.pt)
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 10:03:54 EDT
On 2002.09.26, 16:10, Robert Lloyd Wheelock <bob4you27@excite.com> 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...)
-- ____.
António MARTINS-Tuválkin | ()|
<antonio@tuvalkin.web.pt> |####|
R. Laureano de Oliveira, 64 r/c esq. |
PT-1885-050 MOSCAVIDE (LRS) Não me invejo de quem tem |
+351 917 511 549 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 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 14:37:22 EDT