Re: Medievalist ligature character in the PUA

From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven (
Date: Tue Dec 15 2009 - 04:21:57 CST

  • Next message: Julian Bradfield: "Re: Medievalist ligature character in the PUA"

    [As an aside, your email formatting is seriously messed up. Can you please
    stop hitting enter at some arbitrary point in your sentences and just type
    on and let word-wrap solve it all?]

    -On [20091215 03:41], verdy_p ( wrote:
    >On the opposite, I'm not sure that "ij" and "IJ" are completely unbreakable
    >(even modern Dutch today consider them to be breakable and representable as
    >letter pairs (with the ZWJ ligature hint), given that it has become
    >widespread to write Dutch words without them.

    Actually ij is unbreakable from a language point of view. You cannot
    hyphenate any words using it like blijdschap into bli-jdschap. I think the
    Dutch problem of using ij/IJ/y/Y for the ij comes from the fact we have been
    using US English keyboards for a long time now. These sport no key for ij and
    software was not smart enough back in the day to provide a proper ij when
    people typed ij. At school when we learn writing we *do* learn to write ij as
    an unbreakable character. As such I am also not sure how semantically
    correct it would be to write it as i + ZWJ + j.

    Looking then back to the history of ij you would get ii, but I am not sure if
    that would be one character or two melded together via a ZWJ. I would need
    to look at some old documents for that.

    Funny aside: in school we actually learn to write it as a ligature, with a
    solid connection from i to j, whereas print seems to have it as a digraph
    with no connection.

    Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)> / asmodai
    イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン | | GPG: 2EAC625B
    Paradoxes, side by side...

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 15 2009 - 04:26:34 CST