>> There are orthographic differences between German written in Fraktur >> (uses e and no umlaut), > > This is flatly incorrect. I wish you would try to limit your comments to > areas for which you actually have expertise. Some Fraktur fonts may use a > superscripted 'e', but 'no umlaut' is patently false.">

Unicode Mail List Archive: Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts? (original) (raw)

Next message: Richard Wordingham: "Re: Hebrew script in IDN (was Exemplar Characters)"

From: "Asmus Freytag" <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
>> There are orthographic differences between German written in Fraktur
>> (uses e and no umlaut),
>
> This is flatly incorrect. I wish you would try to limit your comments to
> areas for which you actually have expertise. Some Fraktur fonts may use a
> superscripted 'e', but 'no umlaut' is patently false.

You are rewording the same thing as me, with the same conclusion. a
superscript 'e' is still a 'e', not an umlaut.
In fact if you look at fraktur 'e' it looks very much like the true origin
of the umlaut differenciation with vocalic 'e' in German: it's about its
position.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5: Sat Nov 19 2005 - 06:00:16 CST