Re: Accented IJ

From: Pim Blokland (pblokland@planet.nl)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 11:16:59 EDT

  • Next message: Markus Scherer: "Re: Accented IJ"

    Kent Karlsson schreef:

    > For Dutch, (y-diaeresis) can be used instead of ij.

    No, no! No matter how many examples you may have seen of ij being
    represented as , it still is not correct.
    It may have been caused by people who a) thought they were
    interchangable, because in handwriting (and in script fonts) the
    letter combination i + j looks very much like , or b) desperately
    tried to use a single glyph for the ij digraph and didn't have
    U+0133 at their disposal, only U+00FF (the latter being much more
    widespread).

    > So <ij-ligature, double acute> seems also to be a reasonable way
    of acute-accenting an ij-ligature.

    Only with fonts that support that kind of combination, as you said.
    Without help from the font, you get the dotted i and j with the
    acutes superimposed on the dots. Horrible!
    Besides, call me ignorant, but I'm not sure if the Hungarian umlaut
    has the same meaning as two consecutive acute stress marks, and if
    it's allowed to be used only because it looks the same.

    Pim Blokland



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 01 2003 - 12:13:05 EDT