RE: Romanian characters Erare umanum est, perseverare diabolicum

From: Tom Stern (
Date: Thu Jun 05 1997 - 17:21:00 EDT

More information can be added.

The Turkish S cedilla was officialy introduced in the 1928 by the
adoption of the Roman alphabet. It contained 2 characters with cedilla as
diacritic below: S and C.
The Romanian S and T with comma_below were introduced in the decade of
1850s. It contained 2 characters with comma as diacritic below: S and T.
There were several more changes to the Cyrillic script. There were more
changes to the Romanian ortography afterwards.
The S with comma_below and the T with comma_below were NEVER changed.

It can be seen in Romanian books from last century published in then
Austria or Romania which diacritic below was used. They use the comma

The cedilla appeared in Romanian texts mostly published outside of
Romania at the very end of the 20th century.
Therefore that is what many of you see.

In the past decade, outside Romania the above mentioned characters often
use cedilla for S and comma for T. This is an ERROR.

It is not in my intention to be critical about the ISO/IEC 8859-2 use of
the S cedilla instead of S comma_below, I just think that the correct
glyph is as the Romanian representaive suggested below with the

 "Erare umanum est, perseverare diabolicum"

Tom Stern
Geac Canada Limited
Library Software Development
11 Allstate Parkway, Suite 500
Markham, Ontario L3R 9T8

voice 1-905 475-0525
fax 1-905 475-3847
From: Michael Everson[]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 1997 3:10 AM
To: iso10646; sc2wg3
Subject: Romanian characters

=46orwarding a message received from Alexandra Statescu of Romanian

>It seems Romanian characters are more important than we ever
>thought, if so many people are involved in our problem.
>In our opinion, an ISO standard is even more important for non-Romanians
>than for Romanians. We do not learn about Romanian characters in an ISO
>standard, but, maybe, a foreigner learns about it only in the standard.
>About ISO/IEC 8859-2, we consider that as long as it deals with
>Romanian characters and not with Turkish characters, our opinion is
>essential. If you will look on DIS ISO/IEC 8859-2, you will see
>Romanian characters represented with comma below,-and you can see
>the difference between comma below and cedilla- but their names are
>"with cedilla". This is strange. It is true that it was an error in
>this standard, long time ago, at first edition, but at that time,
>Romania was not an ISO member anymore.
>It is also true that now, you can find in the Romanian printed
>materials S and T characters with cedilla, but this is a consequence
>of that original mistake, spreaded via word processing software.
>About cost involved by our request, we consider that any delay will
>drive to higher costs, and this is because in Romania computers are
>more and more used.
>We are aware that our request will involve modifications in other
>related standards, but, as we know, part of them are proposed for
>revision, and this is a good opportunity to correct a mistake.
>Best regards,
>Alexandra STATESCU

Michael Everson, Everson Gunn Teoranta
15 Port Chaeimhghein =CDochtarach; Baile =C1tha Cliath 2; =C9ire
Guth=E1in: +353 1 478-2597, +353 1 283-9396
27 P=E1irc an Fh=E9ithlinn; Baile an Bh=F3thair; Co. =C1tha Cliath;

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:34 EDT