Re: unicode Digest V12 #108

From: Asmus Freytag <>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:18:10 -0700

On 7/6/2011 12:16 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Allowing word division just to say that some characters do not
> constitute a digraph (or trigraph…) is not practical e.g. when the
> text has otherwise no word divisions, for one reason or another, or
> when the particular word division point is typographically suboptimal
> or even bad.
I quite agree. But that's been my position from the start.

In my very first post in this thread I had written:

    ...*if* such split [=word division] *is possible*, I would call it
    [=SHY] the preferred solution to indicating an "accidental" digraph.

The corollary is that it's not a good thing to use SHY when there's no
coinciding word division.

True digraphs are usually not word division points, but in any language
forming compounds, accidental combinations occur at word-division
boundaries with some frequency.

The Danes, over a decade ago, when they made the official recommendation
to use SHY appear to have come to the conclusion that "AA" can never
occur accidentally, except at word division in compounds.

Received on Wed Jul 06 2011 - 13:22:32 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jul 06 2011 - 13:22:37 CDT