From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 18:17:49 EDT
From: "Pim Blokland" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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.
I totally agree. SpecialCasing rules are needed only for the support of existing words and rules appropriate with a real language. We MUST ignore inexistant words and treat them the same as other existing words for that language.
"Il n'y a pas d'idées prématurées, il y a des moments opportuns qu'il faut savoir attendre."
(Premature ideas do not exist, one must bide one's time until the right moment comes along.)
(If you want to receive daily translations of famous citations in many languages, you can subscribe for "Verba Volant", on www.logos.it, or click http://www.verba-volant.net)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2003 - 19:06:21 EDT