Re: cedilla vs. commaaccent

From: John Hudson (
Date: Sat Oct 16 1999 - 19:05:11 EDT

At 12:59 AM 16-10-99 -0700, Martin Kotulla wrote:

>Thanks. So I take it that there are *no* [GgKkLlNnRr]cedillas anywhere in the
>world and that the only characters with cedillas are Ccedilla, ccedilla,
>Scedilla and scedilla. Right?

Not to my knowledge, although it should be remembered that there are busy
linguists out there devising orthographies for unwritten languages, and
anyone capable of creating a barred lowercase i cedilla with circumflex
might one day decide that an N cedilla is just the ticket.

>What about Tcedilla vs. Tcedillaaccent? Adobe is doing some double-mapping
>concerning these characters, as you can see here:
>(scroll down to section 4.c. Double-mappings)
>Do these really exist as separate characters?

In Unicode, yes, these exist as separate characters, which explains why
Adobe has included both in their PSname glyph list. Does the T cedilla
exist as a diacritic in any orthography? I would say no, although an
argument can be made for Gagauz Turk adopting this form. The relatively new
Gagauzi Latin script orthography is something of an uncomfortable mix of
Romanian and Turkish orthographic practice. Some official publications
include Scedilla alongside Tcommaaccent, which looks very odd. If the
Gagauz Turks were to decide that they wanted to stress their inclusion in a
pan-Turkic community, they might drop the Romanian Tcommaaccent and replace
it with the Tcedilla. Luckily for them, this character just happens to
exist in Unicode!

John Hudson

Tiro Typeworks
Vancouver, BC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:53 EDT