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

From: Jukka K. Korpela (jkorpela@cs.tut.fi)
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)?
    >
    > U+02B9 MODIFIER LETTER PRIME

    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
    transliterated.

    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. 

    -- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

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