From: Adam Twardoch (list.adam@twardoch.com)
Date: Mon Dec 29 2003 - 12:29:02 EST
> > For the same reason, why is the German "ess-tsett" (sharp S) given a
> > compatibility decomposition as <s><s> instead of <long-s><s>?
>
> Don't know. But there are instances of sharp s (ß) that look like a
ligated
> long-s (ſ) and ezh (ʒ).
That is correct.
Before a consistent spelling using "ß" was introduced, long-s was used in
conjunction with both s and z (that at the time looked like ʒ). This was the
time when German spelling was not unified, so many alternate spellings were
in use (e.g. "ey" next to "ei", the appearing and disappearing "h" that
followed long vowels).
In earlier typographic practice, "ß" was often designed as a ligature of
long-s and the ʒ-formed z. Even the name "ess-tsett" suggests that it's
originally been a "sz" digraph, not "ss".
Even today, some (rather few) users of German prefer to use the "sz"
compatibility decomposition rather than "ss" since it's far less ambiguous.
It's a minority practice, but I have seen this. "sz" does not occur in
normal German, while "ss" has orthographic differences from "ß". I have seen
compatiblity spellings (in e-mails) such as "Grusz" instead of "Gruss" when
"ß" was missing ("Gruß" is the correct spelling).
I definitely support keeping "ss" as the compatibility decomposition of "ß"
since this is the by far most acceptable variant.
Adam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 30 2003 - 14:14:13 EST