From: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 14 2006 - 11:37:08 CDT
-On [20060614 18:16], Keutgen, Walter (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>Surnames with words beginning with a lower case letter would not have this
>letter capitalized, except as 1st letter of the title being a sentence of its
You are, I think, forgetting about the case where you have a Johan van
Oostergem and a letter will address him as:
Geachte heer Van Oostergem [...].
The lower case start of the surname is in fact uppercased. Not sure if you
meant that with title as well, if so, mea culpa.
>Is it really the aim of Unicode to cover this all for the benefit of some
>universal routine? I doubt.
I doubt that too. My information was more informative I guess. ;)
>If I remember well what I have heard from a now retired Dutch colleague and
>read elsewhere, before the spelling reform of 1946-1947, the ligature "ij"
>[ει] was a letter on its own, between "i" and "j" in the collation sequence.
I can show you old 19th century dictionary files where the ij ligature
(derived from ii) was in the place in the collation sequence where nowadays y
is situated (u v w x y z).
>The ligatures exist in UNICODE, U+0132 (Ĳ) and U+0133 (ĳ). Like the French
>"Œ" and "œ", they were not present in the typewriter. The decision was taken
>to write henceforth "ij" and "IJ". The "IJ" instead of "Ij" in title case
>could be the result of a victory of traditionalists (like the ending "isch"
>instead of "is").
Some philologist would need to verify this, but it might also have to do with
the double i which lies at the origin of ij.
But I wonder how much of that is relevant to this discussion. I do love to
hear of answers though. ;)
-- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ If I am telling you the Truth now, do you believe it..?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 14 2006 - 12:01:33 CDT