From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 18:10:15 CST
On 11/19/2005 3:58 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> From: "Asmus Freytag" <email@example.com>
>>> 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