> 1) I would not propose that ZWL, in the normal case, is a prerequisite to
> the appearance of a ligature.
I agree. Absent ZWNL, fonts should be able to ligature whenever they want to.
> 3) I like the idea that ZWL and ZWNL be unified with ZWJ and ZWNJ, [...]
> the ZW*L function cannot be used in scripts, like Devanagari or Arabic,
> where ZWJ and ZWNJ already have a well-defined meaning. But my feeling is
> that the ligating behavior of these scripts is already well defined, or (for
> Indic scripts other than Devanagari) will be defined soon with no need for
> the new "ligator" concept.
I think Arabic is precisely the case where ZW*J needs to be distinguished
from ZW*L. Joining (shape control) is one thing; the creation of
ligatures is quite another. High-quality Arabic typography has gobs of
ligatures. What I don't know (and would like to know) is whether in any case
the use or non-use of a ligature affects meaning rather than presentation.
If the answer is no, then ZW*L is not really needed for Arabic.
> (BTW: My old English teachers would have said "scenarioes", but she was a
> 2nd language teacher too. In Italian it would be "scenari" or, even better,
> "scenarÓ"; "scenarii" is very obsolete and is not to be seen in 20th century
"Scenarios" is the standard plural form; only a handful of words in "-o"
form their plurals in "-oes", and (notoriously) some native speakers
(including some teachers, alas) have come to believe that if the plural
is "-oes", the singular must be "-oe": true for "toe", false for "tomato".
Newly introducted words in "-o" almost always have a regular plural "-os".
"Scenarii" was probably an attempt to construct a Latinate plural,
similar to the use of "viri" or (worse) "virii" as plural of "virus".
In Latin, "virus" (meaning "poison") was a mass-noun with no usual
plural form; the proper English plural is "viruses".
-- John Cowan email@example.com I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:57 EDT