Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts?

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 18:10:15 CST

  • Next message: Otto Stolz: "Re: Exemplar Characters"

    On 11/19/2005 3:58 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:

    > From: "Asmus Freytag" <>
    >>> There are orthographic differences between German written in Fraktur
    >>> (uses e and no umlaut),
    >> This is flatly incorrect. I wish you would try to limit your comments
    >> to areas for which you actually have expertise. Some Fraktur fonts
    >> may use a superscripted 'e', but 'no umlaut' is patently false.
    > You are rewording the same thing as me, with the same conclusion. a
    > superscript 'e' is still a 'e', not an umlaut.

    Verdy wrote: "Fraktur .. uses .. no umlaut"

    I wrote: "Some Fraktur fonts may use a superscripted 'e'".

    This is not the same conclusion. There is plenty material typeset in
    Fraktur that does *not* use a superscripted 'e'. In fact, a quick check
    in my own library reveals no book that uses the 'e' -- all of them use
    the umlauts. Therefore, I essentially reach the opposite conclusion from

    I repeat: to state that Fraktur uses no umlaut is 'patently false'.

    > In fact if you look at fraktur 'e' it looks very much like the true
    > origin of the umlaut differenciation with vocalic 'e' in German: it's
    > about its position.

    Nobody was arguing this one way or the other - this is irrelevant.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 21 2005 - 18:56:02 CST