Re: Dutch IJ, again

From: Pim Blokland (
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 16:00:39 EDT

  • Next message: Stefan Persson: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"

    Karl Pentzlin schreef:

    > In quality typography, does the "ij" in "bijectie" look different
    > from an ij ligature?
    > Is it recommended to write "bi[ZWNJ]jectie" when you don't use
    > U+0133 for "common" "ij"s?

    No, it's just one word; we don't put non-joiners inside a word.
    It also should not look any different from words where the ij is one
    My feelings at this moment are that if you do want to make the
    difference clear, write U+0133 for the "normal" ij sound and i+j for
    when it's supposed to be two letters, and don't use any tricks such
    as non-joiners. (If you MUST resort to tricks like that, my gut
    feeling would be to use a joiner such as U+034F inside "normal" ijs
    and nothing between the ij in bijectie. Again, no non-joiners inside

    Pim Blokland

    P.S. I haven't yet stumbled upon any words starting with ij which
    were NOT pronounced with the ij sound. I'm beginning to think words
    like that don't exist.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2003 - 16:57:52 EDT