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

Next message: Otto Stolz: "Re: Exemplar Characters"

On 11/19/2005 3:58 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:

> 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.

Verdy wrote: "Fraktur .. uses .. no umlaut"

I wrote: "Some Fraktur fonts may use a superscripted 'e'".

This is not the same conclusion. There is plenty material typeset in
Fraktur that does *not* use a superscripted 'e'. In fact, a quick check
in my own library reveals no book that uses the 'e' -- all of them use
the umlauts. Therefore, I essentially reach the opposite conclusion from
you.

I repeat: to state that Fraktur uses no umlaut is 'patently false'.

> 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.

Nobody was arguing this one way or the other - this is irrelevant.

A./

>
>
>
>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 18:56:02 CST