From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (marnen@marnen.org)
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 15:03:40 CST
On May 4, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
[...]
> Actually, not at all. I think that is missing the point John is
> trying to make.
I did not miss John's point. I just do not agree with it, or with
your amplification of it.
[...]
> First of all, take all this as stipulated:
>
> 1. Uppercase ß is attested.
Yes.
> 2. Uppercase long s is not attested.
Yes.
> 3. Uppercase ß is graphologically derived by acquisition of
> a case distinction from the preexisting lowercase ß,
> and not be any separate historical ligation of its own.
> (And we don't need to argue whether it should have or
> shouldn't have. See point 1.)
Yes.
> 4. Lowercase ß is graphologically derived from the ligation
> of long s and z. (And also has at least two distinct
> shape traditions, one of which is known as the "3" shape.)
Yes.
> 5. Despite the graphological origin, in modern German,
> the lowercase ß is equivalent (for some contexts) to
> a <s, s> sequence, and not to a <long-s, z> sequence.
Not really. If that were so, then (lowercase) ß could be handled
like the fi and fl ligatures. But that's really not the case -- it
has different semantics, as evidenced by minimal pairs like "Masse"
and "Maße".
>
> O.k., if we can stipulate all that, then we don't have to
> argue it all, point-by-point ad naseum. (Of course, if I'm
> wrong about any of that, argue away. ;-) )
I believe that premise 5 is wrong, as mentioned above.
[...]
> If you take the first position, as John Hudson has been
> arguing, then the next question would be: "What is the
> glyph for uppercase ß a visual representation of?"
> And given all the evidence in the proposal, it is pretty
> clear that the answer is: <S, S>, i.e., a sequence of
> two uppercase S's.
I would say more that it as a sequence of <[uppercase], ß>.
>
> So that would lead to the suggestion (not stipulation, at this
> point):
>
> 6. In modern German, the uppercase ß is equivalent (for
> some contexts) to an <S, S> sequence, and not to a
> <long-s, Z> sequence or anything else.
No. It is equivalent to an ß sequence. In texts where uppercase [ß]
is used, ss -> SS while ß -> [ß] -- hence examples like "MASSEMA[ß]E"
in the proposal. If SS and [ß] were equivalent, there would be no
need for this.
You are correct that for some contexts, [ß] = SS, but then, for some
contexts it doesn't. The fact that the equivalency is not complete
suggests that we are dealing with a new character here, not a simple
glyph variant.
[...]
> And the next step in the argument is: Supposing you need to
> maintain a distinction in *plain* text between an <S, S>
> sequence which would not "ligate" (i.e., would be shown
> in presentation with a sequence of {S} and {S} glyphs and
> an <S, S> sequence which *would* "ligate" (i.e., would be
> shown in presentation with a single {uppercase ß} glyph),
> then the standard mechanism for this in Unicode is:
>
> <S, S> <-- don't ligate by default
> <S, ZWJ, S> <-- ligate if appropriate and if the font in use
> has an uppercase ß glyph mapped to
> this sequence
>
> O.k.?
No. As others have said, it is quite possible to envision a true SS
ligature distinct from [ß] -- after all, ß and [ß] are not used
except in German. Just as ss ligature != ß, I think SS ligature !=
[ß].
Best,
-- Marnen Laibow-Koser marnen@marnen.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 04 2007 - 15:04:45 CST