Re: Apostrophe in transliteration (was: Modifiers from punctuation)

From: Jukka K. Korpela (
Date: Mon Aug 09 2010 - 09:42:14 CDT

  • Next message: John H. Jenkins: "Re: Accessing alternate glyphs from plain text (from Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)"

    Karl Pentzlin wrote:

    > Am Montag, 9. August 2010 um 16:18 schrieb Otto Stolz:
    >> Which one is recommended, when transliterating, as the Latin
    >> equvalent of the Cyrillic letter Soft Sign (044C)?

    I don’t think I’ve seen any specific recommendation on this, but I guess you
    are referring to the statement ”transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic
    soft sign: palatalization)” in the description of U+02B9 in the Unicode
    Standard. I would classify the statement as descriptive about one use of the
    character, rather as a normative statement on how the soft sign should be

    It is of course transliteration standards that should say something
    normative about the matter. As far as I can remember, the authoritative
    versions of the relevant standards are the paper publications, which do no
    identify characters by Unicode numbers, just as ink on paper.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 09 2010 - 09:44:28 CDT