[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: questions & comments
- To: Hilmar Schlegel <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: questions & comments
- From: Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 16:21:15 +0200 (MET DST)
- Cc: Rebecca and Rowland <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: <35A68A38.AA0@mailszrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org><199807090935.LAA19932@attila.uni-duesseldorf.de><199807091002.MAA03931@mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr><email@example.com><35A68A38.AA0@mailszrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de>
» Therefore new spelling rules and resistance against the sharp s causes
» the revival of the need of the long s
if you were not sooo muuuch biaised, you simply could admit that the
modern shape of the long-s is: s. And you're done.
BTW Jörg Knappen uses library calls to Tschishold's book to justify
his sharp s, saying that it never was an sz but always an ss,
erroneous analysis (as yours) coming from the monastic habits of
ligaturing the final s with itself (drawing a diagonal linking both
ends of s).
» BTW, writing sharp s in English as s-long s-final would also workaround
» the pronounciation problem, I guess ;-)
you gue\ss what?
» Possible it would be worth a try to set up a FAQ for the case...
in de.comp.fonts, for sure?
Th. Bouche <http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~bouche/>