Re: Engmagate?

From: Jean-François Colson <>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:58:44 +0100

Le 13/12/13 08:33, Denis Jacquerye a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Michael Everson <> wrote:
>> On 12 Dec 2013, at 15:29, Leo Broukhis <> wrote:
>>> Hasn't explained it once and for all?
>> No, because users of N-shaped capital Eng consider n-shaped capital Eng to be *WRONG*, not an acceptable variant. And because n-shaped capital Eng consider N-shaped capital Eng to be *WRONG*, not an acceptable variant.
>> Disunification is the best solution.
>> I suppose nothing will happen until the governments of eng-using countries come together with a proposal.
> What if not every user of one form considers it wrong to use the other form?
> What if there’s evidence of use of both forms in those languages?
> What if the users who consider the other shape wrong are unaware of
> the history or variation of their own orthographies?

All those problems could be solved with variation selectors.

In the case of a disunification, you are compelled to choose one of the
two forms.

If variation sequences are preferred:
— those who consider a form is wrong simply use the VS associated with
the other form,
— and those who’re not bothered by that matter and wish more variation
might use the letter Ŋ without any VS.

About the history question, should I print my curriculum vitæ in
blackletter only because that writing style has been used in my country?
Received on Fri Dec 13 2013 - 02:00:32 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Dec 13 2013 - 02:00:32 CST