From: Janusz S. Bieñ (jsbien@mimuw.edu.pl)
Date: Sat Apr 17 2010 - 13:12:12 CDT
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 André Szabolcs Szelp <a.sz.szelp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think it would be a good idea to contact MUFI and ask whether they'd
> include these characters. They share a lot with them in common, even
> though they must be considered early modern instead of late mediaeval.
>
> BTW, I think your combining "small EZH as combining character" can be
> considered a variant of the COMBINING CEDILLE, or to be more exact, it
> _is_ a CEDILLE, and the orthography specifies it's placement for D, D
> WITH ACUTE and R (slightly more to the right than to the center),
> which does not even conflict as (an actual)* cedille is note employed
> for these letters otherwise; the CEDILLE itself is a little Z
> (zed-ille 'little Zed'), which was commonly written in the ezh form
> historically.
>
> /Szabolcs
Thanks for reminding me the origin of cedille. If Wikipedia is
correct, it's original shape
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Visigothic_Z-C_cedille.png
is identical to that used in Polish.
I will follow your advice.
Best regards
JSB
P.S. My apology for my recent silence. I was abroad on a meeting which
appeared more busy than expected and despite the Internet access I was
unable to come back to the topic earlier. I hope to catch up with the
discussion soon.
--
,
dr hab. Janusz S. Bien, prof. UW - Uniwersytet Warszawski (Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej)
Prof. Janusz S. Bien - Warsaw University (Department of Formal Linguistics)
jsbien@uw.edu.pl, jsbien@mimuw.edu.pl, http://fleksem.klf.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 17 2010 - 13:20:00 CDT