Re: ZWJ, ZWNJ and VS in Latin and other Greek-derived scripts

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Fri Jan 26 2007 - 12:25:56 CST

  • Next message: Ruszlan Gaszanov: "RE: ZWJ, ZWNJ and VS in Latin and other Greek-derived scripts"

    On 1/26/2007 12:48 AM, Ruszlan Gaszanov wrote:
    > John H. Jenkins wrote:
    >> In any event, I reiterate: Ligature formation in Latin is a matter of stylistic preference.
    subject to the orthographic restrictions in certain languages, and
    requirements in certain styles (Blackletter).
    >> Stylistic preferences do not belong in plain text.
    > The same ligatures (or glyph variations for that matter) could be considered
    > stylistic variations in some texts, but may have distinct semantics in others. As a
    > trivial example, Latin letters v, u and w can be given - in Classic Latin, u is a
    > glyph variation of v and w is a vv ligature - thus vv = uu = w. In most modern
    > languages using Latin script, however, those are three distinct letters.
    > I'm not suggesting that we should use <v ZWJ v> for w or <v VS2> for u, but there
    > are many cases where this approach could, in fact, be useful. When ligature is a
    > purely stylistic feature, ZWJ shouldn't be used, but a font may or may not ligate
    > characters. But if the author does use ZWJ or VS, it is probably because ligation or
    > specific glyph variation is important for semantics, rather then a merely stylistic
    > feature.
    This kind of argument is rather pointless without a set reasonable
    examples. (Classical Latin is not sufficient, for the reason you
    yourself provide).


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 26 2007 - 12:28:53 CST