Fw: Re: ß vs. ſs

From: philip chastney (philip_chastney@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Mar 11 2010 - 11:58:43 CST

  • Next message: Mark Davis ☕: "Re: property, character, and sequence name loose matching"

    oops  --  forgot to REPLY ALL   . . .   /phil

    --- On Fri, 12/3/10, philip chastney <philip_chastney@yahoo.com> wrote:

    From: philip chastney <philip_chastney@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: ß vs. ſs
    To: "David Starner" <prosfilaes@gmail.com>
    Date: Friday, 12 March, 2010, 1:56 AM

    it seems to me that ß deserves to be treated as a distinct letter, rather than a ligature, especially now that it has its own uppercase form  --  something after the manner in which C and its bar became G, and I and its tail became J

    as far as English goes, I normally expect to see (e.g) "princess"
    in certain contexts, I would not be surprised to see "princeſs"
    I would never, in my wildest nightmares, expect to see "princeß"

    FWIW, if you are preserving (the contents of) old texts, I think you should preserve the characters you see, rather than the stylistic mannerisms of the scribe who wrote it

    if the stylistic mannerisms are important, or the interpretation of the characters open to dispute, then the text needs to be preserved pictorially, rather than as plain text

    Roman epigraphs are an example of the latter, where the text uses a number of unusual characters and abbreviations, it may be misread due to erosion of the tablet, and may in any case be incomplete

    there again, others may disagree

    regards   . . .   /phil

    --- On Wed, 10/3/10, David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com> wrote:

    From: David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com>
    Subject: ß vs. ſs
    To: "Unicode Mailing List" <unicode@unicode.org>
    Date: Wednesday, 10 March, 2010, 11:15 PM

    I've been telling people that the ſs ligature in early English texts
    is not ß and shouldn't be recorded that way. I assume that's good
    advice in the normal case, that even when you're preserving the
    long-s, the ſs ligature should be recorded as ſs? If you're using ſt
    and st, would that still be good advice? In practice, a ſs ligature
    will exist only in the rarest of fonts, and most modern font styles
    arguably shouldn't ligate it.

    Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 11 2010 - 12:00:56 CST