Re: What justification for separately encoding two forms of lowercase  sigma

From: verdy_p (
Date: Fri Sep 11 2009 - 19:01:01 CDT

  • Next message: Harshula: "Re: Run-time checking of fonts for Sinhala support"

    "Karl Pentzlin"
    > Independently of this, there are Caucasian languages (at least Udi)
    > which used the long s as a different letter (when using the Latin script in
    > the 1920/1030s), They even developed an uppercase form of it.

    They are not alone. In African berbere langues the long s (shaped as a longer esh) was also developed with a
    capital of it (borrowing the Greek capital sigma for it). This letter pair became the current Esh pair, so there's
    in it the needed difference with the normal Latin s.

    I don't think that the long s should ever be used, if its capital is not the capital Latin S. For me, even it it
    looks like the baseline lowerse s, or like the small esh with a descender, the letter should be encoded so that
    the effecitve difference with s/S is preserved consistently. Then you can use fonts that will present italic small
    long s like an italic small esh (in languages that don't use esh as a distinct letter), but it will still be a
    long s and its capital will still be a Latin capital S.

    That's why we have other variants of S and Z letters, like Esh, Ej, ... which come with their distinct casing
    letters pairs, which can be differenciated each time it is needed.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 11 2009 - 19:06:50 CDT