Résumé or resume?

[Ant]

Hello.

Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

Thank you for reading and answering.
--
Quote of the Week: "I got worms! That's what we're going to call it.
We're going to specialize in selling worm farms. You know like ant
farms. What's the matter, a little tense about the flight?" --Lloyd
Christmas (Dumb and Dumber movie)
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / http://antfarm.ma.cx
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )

[RH Draney]

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

[Madhu]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.

Résumé

As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.

On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

As long as you don't spell it curriculum vitæ.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

In AmE, the two sorts of documents are different things (as has been
discussed).

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Katy Jennison
There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

In AmE, the two sorts of documents are different things (as has been
discussed).

For either document, it's stating the bleeding obvious to have that as the title. The person's name is usually best.

Owain

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

[occam]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

Does that not fall foul of the same error highlighted by RH Draney? I'm
not sure if all encodings include special characters.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by occam

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

Does that not fall foul of the same error highlighted by RH Draney? I'm
not sure if all encodings include special characters.

Of course: that's why it's a way to make it more difficult!

[Peter Moylan]

Post by occam

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling
online? Or does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know
that the document will not be passing through stages that
will mangle the character encoding...the word has been known
to reach recipients as "risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1
assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose
between utf-8 and latin-1 and the whole world already uses
utf-8 but only because unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd
recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some
regional recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as
(stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae
as a ligature.

Does that not fall foul of the same error highlighted by RH Draney?

Yes; that was Athel's point, I believe.

Post by occam
I'm not sure if all encodings include special characters.

The designers of such encodings will of course choose whichever characters
are essential in the target language(s). That, of course, implies that
certain others will be omitted for lack of space, unless it's a "big"
character set like Unicode that tries to include everything.

A more important point, though, is that even if an ae ligature exists in
two different codes it is likely to be at two different places in the
code tables, meaning that it's not portable across encodings in any
case. That's why (some, but not all) Usenet articles include MIME header
lines, to specify the encoding. And even that will fail if the
recipient's newsreader doesn't understand MIME.

The majority of commonly used character encodings include 7-bit ASCII as
a subset. (But not 8-bit ASCII. Despite the claims of some vendors,
there's no such thing as 8-bit ASCII [*].) As soon as you go outside that
subset, you lose portability unless both sender and receiver can handle
MIME.

[*] Usually, those 8-bit codes have encodings
codes 0..127 same as ASCII
codes 128..255 non-ASCII, non-portable characters

[Lewis]

Post by occam

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

Does that not fall foul of the same error highlighted by RH Draney? I'm
not sure if all encodings include special characters.

That's ok, there's only one encoding that matters.

[Madhu]

Post by Lewis

Post by occam
Does that not fall foul of the same error highlighted by RH Draney? I'm
not sure if all encodings include special characters.

That's ok, there's only one encoding that matters.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,
to use this encoding. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that
use this encoding

[occam]

Post by Madhu

Post by Lewis

Post by occam
Does that not fall foul of the same error highlighted by RH Draney? I'm
not sure if all encodings include special characters.

That's ok, there's only one encoding that matters.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,
to use this encoding. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that
use this encoding

Had you included a Chapter and Verse, that would have been even funnier ;-)

[charles]

Post by occam

Post by Madhu

Post by Lewis

Post by occam
Does that not fall foul of the same error highlighted by RH Draney? I'm
not sure if all encodings include special characters.

That's ok, there's only one encoding that matters.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,
to use this encoding. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that
use this encoding

Had you included a Chapter and Verse, that would have been even funnier ;-)

connected with but not accurately, "All Things Bright & Beautiful"

[Quinn C]

Post by occam

Post by Madhu

Post by Lewis

Post by occam
Does that not fall foul of the same error highlighted by RH Draney? I'm
not sure if all encodings include special characters.

That's ok, there's only one encoding that matters.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,
to use this encoding. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that
use this encoding

Had you included a Chapter and Verse, that would have been even funnier ;-)

No, those are irrevelant.

[Madhu]

Post by occam

Post by Madhu
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and
bond, to use this encoding. And that no man might buy or sell, save
he that use this encoding

Had you included a Chapter and Verse, that would have been even funnier ;-)

Oh how I wish it were a joke. But this whole unicode adoption was
pushed with satan behind it, sitting on the board of the unicode
consortium in menlo park even in 1999

[Lewis]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

What's difficult about using æ?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

What's difficult about using æ?

Nothing, if you know how to type it and your newsreader can display it,
both yes for me, but either or both no for many people.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 05:17:39 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling
online? Or does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that
the document will not be passing through stages that will mangle
the character encoding...the word has been known to reach
recipients as "risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1
assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between
utf-8 and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only
because unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the
unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some
regional recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop
and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as
a ligature.

What's difficult about using Ê?

cos it isn't ASCII 0xE6 æ

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nothing, if you know how to type it and your newsreader can display
it, both yes for me, but either or both no for many people.

[Lewis]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 05:17:39 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling
online? Or does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that
the document will not be passing through stages that will mangle
the character encoding...the word has been known to reach
recipients as "risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1
assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between
utf-8 and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only
because unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the
unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some
regional recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop
and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as
a ligature.

What's difficult about using æ?

cos it isn't ASCII 0xE6 �

It is also not 1990.

Get with the program, use a real news browser and a reasonable OS.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 11:31:55 GMT, Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 05:17:39 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling
online? Or does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know
that the document will not be passing through stages that will
mangle the character encoding...the word has been known to
reach recipients as "risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1
assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose
between utf-8 and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8
but only because unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend
the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some
regional recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as
(stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae
as a ligature.

What's difficult about using Ê?

cos it isn't ASCII 0xE6 æ

It is also not 1990.
Get with the program, use a real news browser and a reasonable OS.

Well, hardly anyone is on Usenet any more, get with the program, go to
Facebook and use an OS that itself occupies 20G and 8G RAM for
comfortable use.


Suggestions for an UTF8 compliant newsreader (not browser) welcome.

[Quinn C]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 11:31:55 GMT, Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 05:17:39 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling
online? Or does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know
that the document will not be passing through stages that will
mangle the character encoding...the word has been known to
reach recipients as "risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1
assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose
between utf-8 and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8
but only because unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend
the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some
regional recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as
(stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae
as a ligature.

What's difficult about using æ?

cos it isn't ASCII 0xE6 䋊>

It is also not 1990.
Get with the program, use a real news browser and a reasonable OS.

Well, hardly anyone is on Usenet any more, get with the program, go to
Facebook and use an OS that itself occupies 20G and 8G RAM for
comfortable use.
Suggestions for an UTF8 compliant newsreader (not browser) welcome.

Thunderbird, 40tude Dialog [1], MesNews, XanaNews, Pan, XPN, Claws Mail
and others.

[1] with limits because it's an abandoned project and hasn't been
updated for over a decade. But that should tell you something about how
current your software is. Similar limitations may exist in other
readers I mentioned; while I've used each of them, I haven't used most
of them extensively.

[Lewis]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Suggestions for an UTF8 compliant newsreader (not browser) welcome.

I use slrn.

LANG=en_US.UTF-8
LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8

It's a brave new millennium.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 05:17:39 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct
spelling online? Or does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you
know that the document will not be passing through stages
that will mangle the character encoding...the word has
been known to reach recipients as "risumi" in some
cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1
assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose
between utf-8 and latin-1 and the whole world already uses
utf-8 but only because unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd
recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some
regional recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced
as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing
ae as a ligature.

What's difficult about using Ê?

I think you've just provided the answer. The string Ê is not a ligature.

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
cos it isn't ASCII 0xE6 æ

Your headers don't show what character set you're using, but from the
assertion that æ is encoded as 0xE6 I deduce that you're using
Windows-1252. The character set Windows-1252 is not ASCII; and 0xE6
cannot possibly be an ASCII code, because it requires 8 bits, and ASCII
is a 7-bit code.

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nothing, if you know how to type it and your newsreader can
display it, both yes for me, but either or both no for many
people.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Peter Moylan
Your headers don't show what character set you're using, but from the
assertion that [ae] is encoded as 0xE6 I deduce that you're using
Windows-1252.

Or more standardly, ISO-8859-1.

-- Richard

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter Moylan
Your headers don't show what character set you're using, but from
the assertion that [ae] is encoded as 0xE6 I deduce that you're
using Windows-1252.

Or more standardly, ISO-8859-1.

Yes, I missed that possibility. I'd forgotten that Windows-1252
disagrees with iso-8859-1 only in one section of the code space.

[RHDraney]

Post by Peter Moylan
Your headers don't show what character set you're using, but from the
assertion that æ is encoded as 0xE6 I deduce that you're using
Windows-1252. The character set Windows-1252 is not ASCII; and 0xE6
cannot possibly be an ASCII code, because it requires 8 bits, and ASCII
is a 7-bit code.

Used by two-bit posters....r

[Lewis]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

What's difficult about using æ?

Nothing, if you know how to type it and your newsreader can display it,
both yes for me, but either or both no for many people.

Oh come, even Windows supports UTF-8. Mostly.
--
Supposing there was justice for all, after all? For every unheeded
beggar, every harsh word, every neglected duty, every slight... every
choice... Because that was the point, wasn't it? You had to choose. You
might be right, you might be wrong, but you had to choose, knowing that
the rightness or wrongness might never be clear or even that you were
deciding between two sorts of wrong, that there was no right anywhere.
And always, always, you did it by yourself. You were the one there, on
the edge, watching and listening. Never any tears, never any apology,
never any regrets... You saved all that up in a way that could be used
when needed. --Carpe Jugulum

[Tak To]

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

What's difficult about using æ?

Nothing, if you know how to type it and your newsreader can display it,
both yes for me, but either or both no for many people.

Oh come, even Windows supports UTF-8. Mostly.

Well, not completely.

Windows (and NTFS) is not "UTF-8 everywhere". Internally
it uses UCS-2, which consists of 16-bit entities. Unlike
UTF-16, UCS-2 is not a variable length encoding scheme
so not all Unicode code-points are covered. You are out of
luck if you want to use a code-point that is outside the
UCS-2 range[1] for a filename.

It is up to the individual application program to support
these code-points. Many MS programs do not (e.g., Notepad
on my Windows 7 and MS Word 2007).

[1] E.g., <U+1D11E> "Musical Symbol G Clef"
"𝄞" <-- can your see the character between the quotes
on your browser or newsreader? I can see it in my
Thunderbird.

A font that contains this code-point can be found in
http://www.smufl.org/fonts/
Note to Windows users: extract either or both .otf files
in the otf subdirectory. Right click and choose install.

I'll let Linux experts comment on supporting UTF-8 and/or
all Unicode characters on the various Linux platforms.

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Tak To
I'll let Linux experts comment on supporting UTF-8 and/or
all Unicode characters on the various Linux platforms.

Well, I'm far from a Linux expert, but the default position has been
for some time that really only UTF-8 (or proper ASCII) locales are
supported. However, most text-processing programs may no attempt to
transcode character sets and just assume that whatever text you're
looking at is either ASCII or whatever your locale setting's encoding
is. Of course, if you're old-school and using an ISO 8859 character
set, all UTF-8 text then becomes mojibake.

That's somewhat orthogonal to the question of "supporting ... all
Unicode characters", because many utilities, especially GNU utilities,
will refuse to process text if it contains "invalid characters".
Furthermore, the notion of a "font fallback chain" is rarely supported
by graphical utilities, so it's up to the user to choose a font whose
repertoire contains all of the characters they wish to render
usefully. (This is true of nearly all "classic" Xlib and Xt
applications, for example.) And the Unicode standard changes much
faster than most typefaces can keep up, so the missing characters may
be rendered as blanks, tofu, or some other "no glyph assigned" glyph.
This situation is somewhat improved with more modern graphical
applications that support text shaping; typically these will use a
fallback mechanism so that Arabic or Hindi text, for example, can be
rendered in a font that has those characters, while still allowing
Latin characters in the same text to be rendered in the preferred
font.

-GAWollman

[Lewis]

Post by Tak To

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Madhu

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Here it comes with two copyright symbols with 1 latin-1 assumption.
Résumé
As it is not a subset of latin-1 and you'd have to choose between utf-8
and latin-1 and the whole world already uses utf-8 but only because
unicode is a satanic conspiracy I'd recommend the unnacented version.
On the other hand the accent marks may give a clue to some regional
recruiters that the word is not to be pronounced as (stop and) resume.

There are advantages to the BrE term 'curriculum vitae' or CV for short.

Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

What's difficult about using æ?

Nothing, if you know how to type it and your newsreader can display it,
both yes for me, but either or both no for many people.

Oh come, even Windows supports UTF-8. Mostly.

Well, not completely.

Thus, "Mostly".

Post by Tak To
Windows (and NTFS) is not "UTF-8 everywhere". Internally
it uses UCS-2, which consists of 16-bit entities. Unlike
UTF-16, UCS-2 is not a variable length encoding scheme
so not all Unicode code-points are covered. You are out of
luck if you want to use a code-point that is outside the
UCS-2 range[1] for a filename.
It is up to the individual application program to support
these code-points. Many MS programs do not (e.g., Notepad
on my Windows 7 and MS Word 2007).
[1] E.g., <U+1D11E> "Musical Symbol G Clef"
"𝄞" <-- can your see the character between the quotes
on your browser or newsreader? I can see it in my
Thunderbird.

Yes, of course.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis
What's difficult about using æ?

Nothing, if you know how to type it and your newsreader can display it,
both yes for me, but either or both no for many people.

Applying a ligature will restrict circulation.

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nothing, if you know how to type it and your newsreader can display it,
both yes for me, but either or both no for many people.

Applying a ligature will restrict circulation.

It's also generally discouraged to use "precomposed" ligatures -- the
Unicode folks believe that, outside of some very specialized
situations, the interchange format of text should not use them, and
the text-shaping component of the rendering device should choose
appropriate ligatures from among those included in the selected
typeface. In fact, Unicode doesn't even encode some very traditional
ligatures like "ct". Quoting the Unicode Consortium's FAQ:

The existing ligatures exist basically for compatibility and
round-tripping with non-Unicode character sets. Their use is
discouraged. No more will be encoded in any circumstances.

Ligaturing is a behavior encoded in fonts: if a modern font is
asked to display “h” followed by “r”, and the font has an “hr”
ligature in it, it can display the ligature. Some fonts have
no ligatures, some (especially for non-Latin scripts) have
hundreds. It does not make sense to assign Unicode code points
to all these font-specific possibilities.

Source: https://www.unicode.org/faq/ligature_digraph.html

-GAWollman

[Mark Brader]

Post by Garrett Wollman
It's also generally discouraged to use "precomposed" ligatures -- the
Unicode folks believe that, outside of some very specialized
situations, the interchange format of text should not use them, and
the text-shaping component of the rendering device should choose
appropriate ligatures from among those included in the selected
typeface...

Of course, one language's Æ ligature is another language's letter Æ.
Perhaps Scandinavians are considered very specialized. :-)

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Garrett Wollman
It's also generally discouraged to use "precomposed" ligatures -- the
Unicode folks believe that, outside of some very specialized
situations, the interchange format of text should not use them, and
the text-shaping component of the rendering device should choose
appropriate ligatures from among those included in the selected
typeface...

Of course, one language's Æ ligature is another language's letter Æ.
Perhaps Scandinavians are considered very specialized. :-)

Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Garrett Wollman
It's also generally discouraged to use "precomposed" ligatures -- the
Unicode folks believe that, outside of some very specialized
situations, the interchange format of text should not use them, and
the text-shaping component of the rendering device should choose
appropriate ligatures from among those included in the selected
typeface...

Of course, one language's Æ ligature is another language's letter Æ.
Perhaps Scandinavians are considered very specialized. :-)

Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

English. Check out the logo of Encyclopaedia Britannica over the years.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Garrett Wollman
It's also generally discouraged to use "precomposed" ligatures -- the
Unicode folks believe that, outside of some very specialized
situations, the interchange format of text should not use them, and
the text-shaping component of the rendering device should choose
appropriate ligatures from among those included in the selected
typeface...

Of course, one language's Æ ligature is another language's letter Æ.
Perhaps Scandinavians are considered very specialized. :-)

Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

English. Check out the logo of Encyclopaedia Britannica over the years.

How do you experts in writing systems talk about the fact
that words such as "encyclopaedia" and "manoeuvre" can
or could be written with æ or œ, but words such as
"polkaed" and "does" never could? Does that involve the
distinction between ligatures and letters? Is it
relevant that typefaces with an ff ligature shouldn't
use it in "shelfful" (or so I've read)?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Garrett Wollman
It's also generally discouraged to use "precomposed" ligatures -- the
Unicode folks believe that, outside of some very specialized
situations, the interchange format of text should not use them, and
the text-shaping component of the rendering device should choose
appropriate ligatures from among those included in the selected
typeface...

Of course, one language's Æ ligature is another language's letter Æ.
Perhaps Scandinavians are considered very specialized. :-)

Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

English. Check out the logo of Encyclopaedia Britannica over the years.

How do you experts in writing systems talk about the fact
that words such as "encyclopaedia" and "manoeuvre" can
or could be written with æ or œ, but words such as
"polkaed" and "does" never could? Does that involve the
distinction between ligatures and letters? Is it
relevant that typefaces with an ff ligature shouldn't
use it in "shelfful" (or so I've read)?

Both of your words have morpheme boundaries between the a and the e
(though in "does" it's not entirely transparent), and also etymology:
given that the German umlauted vowels are simply contractions of the
vowel + e, would anyone ever spell "Goethe" with a ligature? Fact:
the Hittitologist Albrecht Goetze spelled his name Götze before he
emigrated to Yale -- but never Gœtze. I don't even see French cœur
spelled with four letters any more! Hmm, "noël" seems like overkill.

[charles]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Garrett Wollman
It's also generally discouraged to use "precomposed" ligatures -- the
Unicode folks believe that, outside of some very specialized
situations, the interchange format of text should not use them, and
the text-shaping component of the rendering device should choose
appropriate ligatures from among those included in the selected
typeface...

Of course, one language's Æ ligature is another language's letter Æ.
Perhaps Scandinavians are considered very specialized. :-)

Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Garrett Wollman
It's also generally discouraged to use "precomposed" ligatures -- the
Unicode folks believe that, outside of some very specialized
situations, the interchange format of text should not use them, and
the text-shaping component of the rendering device should choose
appropriate ligatures from among those included in the selected
typeface...

Of course, one language's Æ ligature is another language's letter Æ.
Perhaps Scandinavians are considered very specialized. :-)

Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular? As a first
guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Garrett Wollman
It's also generally discouraged to use "precomposed" ligatures -- the
Unicode folks believe that, outside of some very specialized
situations, the interchange format of text should not use them, and
the text-shaping component of the rendering device should choose
appropriate ligatures from among those included in the selected
typeface...

Of course, one language's Æ ligature is another language's letter Æ.
Perhaps Scandinavians are considered very specialized. :-)

Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular? As a first
guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular? As a first
guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

More generally, I do find their inscriptions hard to expand, but that
seems to be because they had abbreviation conventions that were meat and
drink to the man on the Aventine omnibus, who had no doubt absorbed them
with his mother's milk (/cum lacto matris/, as it were), but not to me.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular? As a first
guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

Well, they didn't. They're one of the superfluities of British spelling
that Noah Webster was successful in expunging from what he called the
American language. (A rare example, then, of conservatism rather than
innovation in the "center" as opposed to the "periphery." Remember, many
Americanisms are preservations of earlier usages that have been lost in BrE.

Post by Paul Wolff
More generally, I do find their inscriptions hard to expand, but that
seems to be because they had abbreviation conventions that were meat and
drink to the man on the Aventine omnibus, who had no doubt absorbed them
with his mother's milk (/cum lacto matris/, as it were), but not to me.

Usually they just do things like merge adjacent verticals. There were
standard abbreviations for the tiny roster of personal names, and a weird
way of giving dates.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular? As a first
guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

Well, they didn't.

I asked why the Romans did it, and you answered "To save space. Lots of
other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions that didn't get carried
over to modern times." So that statement isn't true for Roman writing?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
They're one of the superfluities of British spelling
that Noah Webster was successful in expunging from what he called the
American language. (A rare example, then, of conservatism rather than
innovation in the "center" as opposed to the "periphery." Remember, many
Americanisms are preservations of earlier usages that have been lost in BrE.

Post by Paul Wolff
More generally, I do find their inscriptions hard to expand, but that
seems to be because they had abbreviation conventions that were meat and
drink to the man on the Aventine omnibus, who had no doubt absorbed them
with his mother's milk (/cum lacto matris/, as it were),

/cum lacte matris/ looks better.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff
but not to me.

Usually they just do things like merge adjacent verticals. There were
standard abbreviations for the tiny roster of personal names, and a weird
way of giving dates.

Yes, I know all that.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular? As a first
guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

Well, they didn't.

I asked why the Romans did it, and you answered "To save space. Lots of
other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions that didn't get carried
over to modern times." So that statement isn't true for Roman writing?

The answer answered "why did those two in particular carry down to the
present day?"

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels
They're one of the superfluities of British spelling
that Noah Webster was successful in expunging from what he called the
American language. (A rare example, then, of conservatism rather than
innovation in the "center" as opposed to the "periphery." Remember, many
Americanisms are preservations of earlier usages that have been lost in BrE.

Post by Paul Wolff
More generally, I do find their inscriptions hard to expand, but that
seems to be because they had abbreviation conventions that were meat and
drink to the man on the Aventine omnibus, who had no doubt absorbed them
with his mother's milk (/cum lacto matris/, as it were),

/cum lacte matris/ looks better.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff
but not to me.

Usually they just do things like merge adjacent verticals. There were
standard abbreviations for the tiny roster of personal names, and a weird
way of giving dates.

Yes, I know all that.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to
write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular? As a first
guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

Well, they didn't.

I asked why the Romans did it, and you answered "To save space. Lots of
other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions that didn't get carried
over to modern times." So that statement isn't true for Roman writing?

The answer answered "why did those two in particular carry down to the
present day?"

So other ligatures than ae and oe didn't carry down to the present day,
but ae and oe didn't carry down to the present day. Very rum. I'll not
enquire further.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to
write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular? As a first
guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

Well, they didn't.

I asked why the Romans did it, and you answered "To save space. Lots of
other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions that didn't get carried
over to modern times." So that statement isn't true for Roman writing?

The answer answered "why did those two in particular carry down to the
present day?"

So other ligatures than ae and oe didn't carry down to the present day,
but ae and oe didn't carry down to the present day. Very rum. I'll not
enquire further.

Those two carried down _further_ than the others. But not to the present
day (Over Here where spelling reform actually caught on, some 2 1/4
centuries ago).

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular?> >> >>

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
As a first

guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

Well, they didn't.

I asked why the Romans did it, and you answered "To save space. Lots of
other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions that didn't get carried
over to modern times." So that statement isn't true for Roman writing?

The answer answered "why did those two in particular carry down to the
present day?"

So other ligatures than ae and oe didn't carry down to the present
day,> but ae and oe didn't carry down to the present day. Very rum.
I'll not> enquire further.

Those two carried down _further_ than the others. But not to the
presentday (Over Here where spelling reform actually caught on,

Hardly. When did you last see Webster's "masheen", "wimmen", "tung" or
"ake"? Or Theodore Roosevelt's "kist" (my gosh, you don't even have
"spelt") A few of Webster's "reforms" caught on, though. In the form of
"wimmin" "wimmen" has come back, but not as a homage to Webster.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
some 2 1/4centuries ago).

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to
write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular?> >> >>

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
As a first

guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

Well, they didn't.

I asked why the Romans did it, and you answered "To save space. Lots of
other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions that didn't get carried
over to modern times." So that statement isn't true for Roman writing?

The answer answered "why did those two in particular carry down to the
present day?"

So other ligatures than ae and oe didn't carry down to the present
day,> but ae and oe didn't carry down to the present day. Very rum.
I'll not> enquire further.

Those two carried down _further_ than the others. But not to the
presentday (Over Here where spelling reform actually caught on,

Hardly. When did you last see Webster's "masheen", "wimmen", "tung" or
"ake"?

"Ake" was an unreforming of a misconceived reform by Dr. Johnson.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Or Theodore Roosevelt's "kist" (my gosh, you don't even have
"spelt")

...

I bought a loaf of spelt bread last week (and a lofe of misspelt bred
the weak befour).

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 18:40:20 GMT, Jerry Friedman

On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-6, Athel

[]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
presentday (Over Here where spelling reform actually caught on,

Hardly. When did you last see Webster's "masheen", "wimmen", "tung" 

or

"ake"?

"Ake" was an unreforming of a misconceived reform by Dr. Johnson.

Or Theodore Roosevelt's "kist" (my gosh, you don't even have
"spelt")

...
I bought a loaf of spelt bread last week (and a lofe of misspelt bred
the weak befour).

I hope nothing went a-rye

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Jerry Friedman
I bought a loaf of spelt bread last week (and a lofe of misspelt bred
the weak befour).

I hope nothing went a-rye

Soda I.

Owain

[bill van]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 18:40:20 GMT, Jerry Friedman

On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-6, Athel

[]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels
presentday (Over Here where spelling reform actually caught on,

Hardly. When did you last see Webster's "masheen", "wimmen", "tung" 

or

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
"ake"?

"Ake" was an unreforming of a misconceived reform by Dr. Johnson.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Or Theodore Roosevelt's "kist" (my gosh, you don't even have
"spelt")

...
I bought a loaf of spelt bread last week (and a lofe of misspelt bred
the weak befour).

I hope nothing went a-rye

Yeah, that's all we knead.

bill

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to
write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular?> >> >>

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
As a first

guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

Well, they didn't.

I asked why the Romans did it, and you answered "To save space. Lots of
other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions that didn't get carried
over to modern times." So that statement isn't true for Roman writing?

The answer answered "why did those two in particular carry down to the
present day?"

So other ligatures than ae and oe didn't carry down to the present
day,> but ae and oe didn't carry down to the present day. Very rum.
I'll not> enquire further.

Those two carried down _further_ than the others. But not to the
presentday (Over Here where spelling reform actually caught on,

Hardly. When did you last see Webster's "masheen", "wimmen", "tung" or
"ake"?

You will not find any of those in his definitive 1828 dictionary. Or,
for that matter, in his "Blue-back Speller."

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Or Theodore Roosevelt's "kist"

Are you so vague as to when TR lived? He embraced the proposals of the
Simplified Spelling Society, requiring the GPO to spell 18 words in an
outlandish way. As soon as he left office, they reverted to proper
American spelling.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
(my gosh, you don't even have
"spelt")

Morphophonemics trumps phonetics. We also don't pronounce it [spElt].

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
A few of Webster's "reforms" caught on, though.

Some even went back across the Pond, such as dropping the k from musick.

Just about none of Webster's changes were original to him, but had been
proposed in England during the decades after Johnson.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
In the form of
"wimmin" "wimmen" has come back, but not as a homage to Webster.

I think you haven't got that quite right.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to
write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular?> >> >>>

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Paul Wolff
As a first

guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

Well, they didn't.

I asked why the Romans did it, and you answered "To save space. Lots of
other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions that didn't get carried
over to modern times." So that statement isn't true for Roman writing?

The answer answered "why did those two in particular carry down to the
present day?"

So other ligatures than ae and oe didn't carry down to the present> >>
day,> but ae and oe didn't carry down to the present day. Very rum.> >>
I'll not> enquire further.

Those two carried down _further_ than the others. But not to the> >
presentday (Over Here where spelling reform actually caught on,

Hardly. When did you last see Webster's "masheen", "wimmen", "tung" or> "ake"?

You will not find any of those in his definitive 1828 dictionary.
Or,for that matter, in his "Blue-back Speller."

Or Theodore Roosevelt's "kist"

Are you so vague as to when TR lived?

Of course not. Why would you think that?

Post by Peter T. Daniels
He embraced the proposals of theSimplified Spelling Society, requiring
the GPO to spell 18 words in anoutlandish way. As soon as he left
office, they reverted to properAmerican spelling.

(my gosh, you don't even have> "spelt")

Morphophonemics trumps phonetics. We also don't pronounce it [spElt].

We do.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

A few of Webster's "reforms" caught on, though.

Some even went back across the Pond, such as dropping the k from musick.
Just about none of Webster's changes were original to him, but had
beenproposed in England during the decades after Johnson.

In the form of> "wimmin" "wimmen" has come back, but not as a homage to
Webster.

I think you haven't got that quite right.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to
write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular?> >> >>>

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Paul Wolff
As a first

guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

Well, they didn't.

I asked why the Romans did it, and you answered "To save space. Lots of
other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions that didn't get carried
over to modern times." So that statement isn't true for Roman writing?

The answer answered "why did those two in particular carry down to the
present day?"

So other ligatures than ae and oe didn't carry down to the present> >>
day,> but ae and oe didn't carry down to the present day. Very rum.> >>
I'll not> enquire further.

Those two carried down _further_ than the others. But not to the> >
presentday (Over Here where spelling reform actually caught on,

Hardly. When did you last see Webster's "masheen", "wimmen", "tung" or> "ake"?

You will not find any of those in his definitive 1828 dictionary.
Or,for that matter, in his "Blue-back Speller."

Or Theodore Roosevelt's "kist"

Are you so vague as to when TR lived?

Of course not. Why would you think that?

Um, because I explicitly stated something like "two and a quarter centuries
ago"? (Apparently not in this thread, but in a message that mentioned how
the replacement of -ick with -ic soon went back across the Atlantic, but
also that Webster didn't invent the changes he included in his "American
language." Which latter I see is below.)

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels
He embraced the proposals of theSimplified Spelling Society, requiring
the GPO to spell 18 words in anoutlandish way. As soon as he left
office, they reverted to properAmerican spelling.

(my gosh, you don't even have> "spelt")

Morphophonemics trumps phonetics. We also don't pronounce it [spElt].

We do.

Then spelling it that way is a viable alternative for your dialect. But
does that mean you've lost the useful distinction between verbal and
adjectival uses, as in "After she spilled the milk, there was plenty
of spilt milk to cry over"?

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

A few of Webster's "reforms" caught on, though.

Some even went back across the Pond, such as dropping the k from musick.
Just about none of Webster's changes were original to him, but had
beenproposed in England during the decades after Johnson.

In the form of> "wimmin" "wimmen" has come back, but not as a homage to
Webster.

I think you haven't got that quite right.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[ … ]
"

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Or Theodore Roosevelt's "kist"

Are you so vague as to when TR lived?

Of course not. Why would you think that?

Um, because I explicitly stated something like "two and a quarter centuries
ago"?

Well of course I saw that and understood it, but I didn't see why my
comment should be constrained to fit your time scale.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Or Theodore Roosevelt's "kist"

Are you so vague as to when TR lived?

Of course not. Why would you think that?

Um, because I explicitly stated something like "two and a quarter centuries
ago"?

Well of course I saw that and understood it, but I didn't see why my
comment should be constrained to fit your time scale.

Because, also, Melvil Dui and his club had nothing to do with Noah Webster?
(Yes, the Dewey Decimal fellow. Every edition published in his long
lifetime, down to the 14th of 1942, was in Simplified Spelling, so
every librarian in the US had at least passive familiarity with the
scheme, yet none of them seems ever to have advocated it.)

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to
write Æ or
Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular?> >> >>>

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Paul Wolff
As a first

guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

To save space. Lots of other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions
that didn't get carried over to modern times. Medieval manuscripts were
far fonder of them, because parchment and eyesight were precious.

I already acknowledged the space-saving ("marble doesn't grow on
trees"), but why did those two in particular carry down to the present
day? And for the moment, I can't recall what other Latin ligatures I've
read on their inscriptions.

Well, they didn't.

I asked why the Romans did it, and you answered "To save space. Lots of
other nonce ligatures were used in inscriptions that didn't get carried
over to modern times." So that statement isn't true for Roman writing?

The answer answered "why did those two in particular carry down to the
present day?"

So other ligatures than ae and oe didn't carry down to the present> >>
day,> but ae and oe didn't carry down to the present day. Very rum.> >>
I'll not> enquire further.

Those two carried down _further_ than the others. But not to the> >
presentday (Over Here where spelling reform actually caught on,

Hardly. When did you last see Webster's "masheen", "wimmen", "tung" or> "ake"?

You will not find any of those in his definitive 1828 dictionary.
Or,for that matter, in his "Blue-back Speller."

Or Theodore Roosevelt's "kist"

Are you so vague as to when TR lived?

Of course not. Why would you think that?

Um, because I explicitly stated something like "two and a quarter centuries
ago"? (Apparently not in this thread, but in a message that mentioned how
the replacement of -ick with -ic soon went back across the Atlantic, but
also that Webster didn't invent the changes he included in his "American
language." Which latter I see is below.)

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels
He embraced the proposals of theSimplified Spelling Society, requiring
the GPO to spell 18 words in anoutlandish way. As soon as he left
office, they reverted to properAmerican spelling.

(my gosh, you don't even have> "spelt")

Morphophonemics trumps phonetics. We also don't pronounce it [spElt].

We do.

Then spelling it that way is a viable alternative for your dialect. But
does that mean you've lost the useful distinction between verbal and
adjectival uses, as in "After she spilled the milk, there was plenty
of spilt milk to cry over"?

Even were I to accept that that is a thing (which I don't for BrE)
in what circumstances would one use 'spelt' (as derived from spell
meaning to sound off the letters in a word) adjectivally?

[Peter T. Daniels]

[spelled]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

(my gosh, you don't even have> "spelt")

Morphophonemics trumps phonetics. We also don't pronounce it [spElt].

We do.

Then spelling it that way is a viable alternative for your dialect. But
does that mean you've lost the useful distinction between verbal and
adjectival uses, as in "After she spilled the milk, there was plenty
of spilt milk to cry over"?

Even were I to accept that that is a thing (which I don't for BrE)
in what circumstances would one use 'spelt' (as derived from spell
meaning to sound off the letters in a word) adjectivally?

Never. Spelt is some sort of crop.

_You_, though, might have noticed that a text with a lot of typos had a
passel of misspelt words that really should have been spelled correctly.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Then spelling it that way is a viable alternative for your dialect. But
does that mean you've lost the useful distinction between verbal and
adjectival uses, as in "After she spilled the milk, there was plenty
of spilt milk to cry over"?

Can you give an example where the distinction is useful? Is its
absence a problem for the hundreds of verbs that don't have it?

-- Richard

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Then spelling it that way is a viable alternative for your dialect. But
does that mean you've lost the useful distinction between verbal and
adjectival uses, as in "After she spilled the milk, there was plenty
of spilt milk to cry over"?

Can you give an example where the distinction is useful? Is its
absence a problem for the hundreds of verbs that don't have it?

Technically it matters. The problem is that a passive
verb construction usually looks exactly like a copula
plus adjective. The existence of examples like this
proves they are different - even if we can't tell them
apart. Just exactly what to do about this remains unclear.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Then spelling it that way is a viable alternative for your dialect. But
does that mean you've lost the useful distinction between verbal and
adjectival uses, as in "After she spilled the milk, there was plenty
of spilt milk to cry over"?

Can you give an example where the distinction is useful? Is its
absence a problem for the hundreds of verbs that don't have it?

What does "useful" have to do with it? The distinction exists in those
verbs that have it. You might just as well ask why some verbs are strong
and some verbs aren't and some are in the process of changing in one
direction or the other, such as "dive."

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Then spelling it that way is a viable alternative for your dialect. But
does that mean you've lost the useful distinction between verbal and

^^^^^^

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels
adjectival uses, as in "After she spilled the milk, there was plenty
of spilt milk to cry over"?

Can you give an example where the distinction is useful? Is its
absence a problem for the hundreds of verbs that don't have it?

What does "useful" have to do with it?

You tell me. You're the one who said it was useful, just a few lines
up.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The distinction exists in those
verbs that have it. You might just as well ask why some verbs are strong
and some verbs aren't and some are in the process of changing in one
direction or the other, such as "dive."

No, what I want to know is why you think it's useful.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Then spelling it that way is a viable alternative for your dialect. But
does that mean you've lost the useful distinction between verbal and

^^^^^^

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels
adjectival uses, as in "After she spilled the milk, there was plenty
of spilt milk to cry over"?

Can you give an example where the distinction is useful? Is its
absence a problem for the hundreds of verbs that don't have it?

What does "useful" have to do with it?

You tell me. You're the one who said it was useful, just a few lines
up.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The distinction exists in those
verbs that have it. You might just as well ask why some verbs are strong
and some verbs aren't and some are in the process of changing in one
direction or the other, such as "dive."

No, what I want to know is why you think it's useful.

Because they mean different things. The distinction wouldn't have
survived for centuries if it didn't perform _some_ function. Presumably
papers have been written on it. You might even find discussions in the
two big descriptive grammars.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Then spelling it that way is a viable alternative for your dialect. But
does that mean you've lost the useful distinction between verbal and
adjectival uses, as in "After she spilled the milk, there was plenty
of spilt milk to cry over"?

Can you give an example where the distinction is useful? Is its
absence a problem for the hundreds of verbs that don't have it?

What does "useful" have to do with it? The distinction exists in those
verbs that have it. You might just as well ask why some verbs are strong
and some verbs aren't and some are in the process of changing in one
direction or the other, such as "dive."

Not in British English it isn't.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Paul Wolff
So other ligatures than ae and oe didn't carry down to the present
day,> but ae and oe didn't carry down to the present day. Very rum.
I'll not> enquire further.

Those two carried down _further_ than the others. But not to the
presentday (Over Here where spelling reform actually caught on,

Hardly. When did you last see Webster's "masheen", "wimmen", "tung" or
"ake"? Or Theodore Roosevelt's "kist" (my gosh, you don't even have
"spelt")

...

We do, but it's rare. GloWbE has 187 American hits. In the first 100,
I saw 14 about the cereal. It has 6628 hits on "spelled".

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by charles

Post by Jerry Friedman
Are there languages with an Æ ligature? That is, whether to
write Æ or Ae is a typographic decision, not one of spelling.

I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

Do we know why the Romans chose to write like that? I know they were
keen on condensing inscriptions (after all, marble doesn't grow on
trees), but why A + E (and O + E too, I think) in particular? As a
first guess, as a representation of certain Greek letters.

The Romans might have thought of these as ligatures, but they were
adopted as real letters by several languages (including Old English)
that borrowed the Latin alphabet for their own use.

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by charles
I learnt Æ when I did Latin at school.

I learnt SFA :-0

Owain

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Garrett Wollman
It's also generally discouraged to use "precomposed" ligatures -- the
Unicode folks believe that, outside of some very specialized
situations, the interchange format of text should not use them, and
the text-shaping component of the rendering device should choose
appropriate ligatures from among those included in the selected
typeface.

Quite right - the alternative is that every program that searches or
matches text has to know about them.

-- Richard

[Lewis]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis
What's difficult about using æ?

Nothing, if you know how to type it and your newsreader can display it,
both yes for me, but either or both no for many people.

Applying a ligature will restrict circulation.

Not for the vast majority of people, no.

[Joy Beeson]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 00:18:34 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

What's difficult about using æ?

I've got "|" on my keyboard, but I had to copy and paste "Ã"

At second glance, I don't have "¦" either.
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

Sorry about breaking the thread. My newsreader refuses to post
non-ASCII subject lines.

Ob original topic: I would not say "resume" when I don't mean
"restart that which has been stopped". Even if I had to use
apostrophes to represent the diacritics.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Joy Beeson
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 00:18:34 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

What's difficult about using æ?

I've got "|" on my keyboard, but I had to copy and paste "Ã"
At second glance, I don't have "¦" either.

My father's typewriter in the 1950s (manual, of course) had "|" (along
with all the useless fractions that British typewriters used to have).
It came out as "|" whether or not the shift key was down, so it was
obviously regarded as necessary and important. I often wondered why,
but he kept the accounts for a ship, and in those days tables usually
had vertical lines as well as horizontal. Nowadays only very
old-fashioned people want their columns separated with vertical lines.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Joy Beeson
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 00:18:34 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

What's difficult about using æ?

I've got "|" on my keyboard, but I had to copy and paste "Ã"
At second glance, I don't have "¦" either.

My father's typewriter in the 1950s (manual, of course) had "|"
(along with all the useless fractions that British typewriters used
to have). It came out as "|" whether or not the shift key was down,
so it was obviously regarded as necessary and important. I often
wondered why, but he kept the accounts for a ship, and in those days
tables usually had vertical lines as well as horizontal. Nowadays
only very old-fashioned people want their columns separated with
vertical lines.

When the ASCII code was being standardised, there was apparently some
uncertainty as to whether the vertical bar code should represent a solid
bar or a broken bar. (That, at least, is what my memory tells me. I
didn't have the patience to see whether the history is hidden somewhere
on the web.) Even now, the two glyphs are commonly considered to be
interchangeable. For example, my keyboard has only the broken bar on the
relevant key top, but if I type it I get a solid vertical bar.

The "|" is still in use in some programming languages; not as a column
separator, but as a symbol for the Boolean OR operator.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 21:59:52 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Joy Beeson
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 00:18:34 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

What's difficult about using æ?

I've got "|" on my keyboard, but I had to copy and paste "Ã"
At second glance, I don't have "¦" either.

My father's typewriter in the 1950s (manual, of course) had "|"
(along with all the useless fractions that British typewriters used
to have). It came out as "|" whether or not the shift key was down,
so it was obviously regarded as necessary and important. I often
wondered why, but he kept the accounts for a ship, and in those days
tables usually had vertical lines as well as horizontal. Nowadays
only very old-fashioned people want their columns separated with
vertical lines.

When the ASCII code was being standardised, there was apparently some
uncertainty as to whether the vertical bar code should represent a solid
bar or a broken bar. (That, at least, is what my memory tells me. I
didn't have the patience to see whether the history is hidden somewhere
on the web.) Even now, the two glyphs are commonly considered to be
interchangeable. For example, my keyboard has only the broken bar on the
relevant key top, but if I type it I get a solid vertical bar.

The keyboards I use have two keys for a vertical bar.
One is to the left of Z. Unshifted that gives \. Shifted gives a
vertical bar.
The other is to the left of the 1 key on the top row. Unshifted that
gives `. With Alt Gr that gives a vertical bar. Shifted it gives ¬ .

There is confusion because the keyboards differ in which key gives a
solid bar and which a broken bar.

On this keyboard one key gives ` ¬ ¦ and the other \ | .
On another keyboard it is ` ¬ | and \ ¦ .

Post by Peter Moylan
The "|" is still in use in some programming languages; not as a column
separator, but as a symbol for the Boolean OR operator.

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Joy Beeson
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 00:18:34 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

What's difficult about using æ?

I've got "|" on my keyboard, but I had to copy and paste "Ã"
At second glance, I don't have "¦" either.

My father's typewriter in the 1950s (manual, of course) had "|"
(along with all the useless fractions that British typewriters used
to have). It came out as "|" whether or not the shift key was down,
so it was obviously regarded as necessary and important. I often
wondered why, but he kept the accounts for a ship, and in those days
tables usually had vertical lines as well as horizontal. Nowadays
only very old-fashioned people want their columns separated with
vertical lines.

When the ASCII code was being standardised, there was apparently some
uncertainty as to whether the vertical bar code should represent a solid
bar or a broken bar. (That, at least, is what my memory tells me. I
didn't have the patience to see whether the history is hidden somewhere
on the web.) Even now, the two glyphs are commonly considered to be
interchangeable. For example, my keyboard has only the broken bar on the
relevant key top, but if I type it I get a solid vertical bar.
The "|" is still in use in some programming languages; not as a column
separator, but as a symbol for the Boolean OR operator.

the bar character is used on UNIX based systems as a 'pipe' indicating
that output of the left side should be sent to the right side.

ls - list the files in the current directory

more file.txt - output file.txt to the screen, pausing when the output
fills the screen

ls | more - list the files, pausing when the file list fills the screen

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan
The "|" is still in use in some programming languages; not as a
column separator, but as a symbol for the Boolean OR operator.

the bar character is used on UNIX based systems as a 'pipe'
indicating that output of the left side should be sent to the right
side.
ls - list the files in the current directory
more file.txt - output file.txt to the screen, pausing when the
output fills the screen
ls | more - list the files, pausing when the file list fills the screen

OS/2 also uses the bar as a pipe on the command line. It's even possible
that Windows has it, but Windows users use a command shell so rarely
that the tradition might have been lost.

Hmm. I've just tried a pipe in a DOS shell, and it worked. (OS/2
includes a DOS command shell in addition to its normal command shell,
although most people have forgotten it's there.) I'd forgotten that
PC-DOS could do that.

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Peter Moylan
Hmm. I've just tried a pipe in a DOS shell, and it worked. (OS/2
includes a DOS command shell in addition to its normal command shell,
although most people have forgotten it's there.) I'd forgotten that
PC-DOS could do that.

OS/2 got it from DOS. Microsoft stole it from Unix (in DOS 2.0), but
implemented using temporary files since DOS did not have multitasking.
OS/2 (and Windows NT) had true multitasking and pipes, and I assume
that CMD.EXE used them.

-GAWollman

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by Peter Moylan
OS/2 also uses the bar as a pipe on the command line. It's even possible
that Windows has it, but Windows users use a command shell so rarely
that the tradition might have been lost.

That's what I thought, but I had to use a command line (but not a pipe) to copy all my font files into my new Windows 10 installation.

Owain

[Peter Moylan]

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Peter Moylan
OS/2 also uses the bar as a pipe on the command line. It's even
possible that Windows has it, but Windows users use a command shell
so rarely that the tradition might have been lost.

That's what I thought, but I had to use a command line (but not a
pipe) to copy all my font files into my new Windows 10 installation.

In any OS, the command line will continue to be important to
programmers, system administrators, power users, and so on. (In Windows,
for example, there's a whole heap of network stuff that can't be done in
a GUI.) It seems to me, though, that such users have become a minuscule
minority.

It's been a long time since computers were the exclusive domain of
people who understood computers.

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Peter Moylan
OS/2 also uses the bar as a pipe on the command line. It's even
possible that Windows has it, but Windows users use a command shell
so rarely that the tradition might have been lost.

That's what I thought, but I had to use a command line (but not a
pipe) to copy all my font files into my new Windows 10 installation.

In any OS, the command line will continue to be important to
programmers, system administrators, power users, and so on. (In Windows,
for example, there's a whole heap of network stuff that can't be done in
a GUI.) It seems to me, though, that such users have become a minuscule
minority.

We always were, it's just that instead of just being a minuscule
minority of computer user were are a minuscule minority of people in
general because basically everyone uses computers.

Post by Peter Moylan
It's been a long time since computers were the exclusive domain of
people who understood computers.

Exactly, and even the geekiest of us only understand our little corners.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
My father's typewriter in the 1950s (manual, of course) had "|" (along
with all the useless fractions that British typewriters used to have).

If you mean Œ, œ, and Ÿ, those were not useless at all; they were
essential characters for writing monetary amounts. "They were
charging 11Ÿd. per person, so the total for 27 of us was £1.6.5Œ."

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
My father's typewriter in the 1950s (manual, of course) had "|" (along
with all the useless fractions that British typewriters used to have).

If you mean ¼, ½, and ¾, those were not useless at all; they were
essential characters for writing monetary amounts. "They were
charging 11¾d. per person, so the total for 27 of us was £1.6.5¼."

Of course, but useless for writing scientific papers.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
My father's typewriter in the 1950s (manual, of course) had "|" (along
with all the useless fractions that British typewriters used to have).

If you mean ¼, ½, and ¾, those were not useless at all; they were
essential characters for writing monetary amounts. "They were
charging 11¾d. per person, so the total for 27 of us was £1.6.5¼."

Of course, but useless for writing scientific papers.

What about writing research grant applications?

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

... 11¾d. per person, so the total for 27 of us was £1.6.5¼."

Of course, but useless for writing scientific papers.

What about writing research grant applications?

I don't expect many of them are still using pre-decimal currency.

Anyway, scientific papers should be written using \( \frac{1}{2} \)

Owain

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

... 11¾d. per person, so the total for 27 of us was £1.6.5¼."

Of course, but useless for writing scientific papers.

What about writing research grant applications?

I don't expect many of them are still using pre-decimal currency.
Anyway, scientific papers should be written using \( \frac{1}{2} \)

That way has an advantage that British typewriter manufacturers never
thought necessary, like a convenient way write all sorts of other
fractions, like \(\pi \approx \frac{355}{113}\)

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Anyway, scientific papers should be written using \( \frac{1}{2} \)

I'm old-school enough that my reflex would be to write $1\over 2$.

-GAWollman

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Anyway, scientific papers should be written using \( \frac{1}{2} \)

I'm old-school enough that my reflex would be to write $1\over 2$.

$+1$

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
My father's typewriter in the 1950s (manual, of course) had "|" (along
with all the useless fractions that British typewriters used to have).

If you mean ¼, ½, and ¾, those were not useless at all; they were
essential characters for writing monetary amounts. "They were
charging 11¾d. per person, so the total for 27 of us was £1.6.5¼."

Of course, but useless for writing scientific papers.

What about writing research grant applications?

Even in my youth grant applications didn't specify expected expenditure
to the nearest farthing.

[Mark Brader]

[Reposting with correct MIME header]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
My father's typewriter in the 1950s (manual, of course) had "|" (along
with all the useless fractions that British typewriters used to have).

If you mean ¼, ½, and ¾, those were not useless at all; they were
essential characters for writing monetary amounts. "They were
charging 11¾d. per person, so the total for 27 of us was £1.6.5¼."

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Mark Brader
[Reposting with correct MIME header]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
My father's typewriter in the 1950s (manual, of course) had "|" (along
with all the useless fractions that British typewriters used to have).

If you mean ź, ˝, and ž, those were not useless at all; they were
essential characters for writing monetary amounts. "They were
charging 11žd. per person, so the total for 27 of us was Ł1.6.5ź."
--

It is a farthing I better do now.

[Ken Blake]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:55:47 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

As I understand it, ae is not a ligature. A ligature is the connection
between two letters, not the resulting glyph.

If I'm wrong. I'd appreciate a correction.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Ken Blake
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:55:47 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

As I understand it, ae is not a ligature. A ligature is the connection
between two letters, not the resulting glyph.
If I'm wrong. I'd appreciate a correction.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographic_ligature

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Ken Blake
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:55:47 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes, but you can make it more difficult if you want by writing ae as a
ligature.

As I understand it, ae is not a ligature. A ligature is the connection
between two letters, not the resulting glyph.
If I'm wrong. I'd appreciate a correction.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that!

Blake's "understanding" seems to be that it is not A, but A.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographic_ligature

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

That very point is made by the Subject header:

Re: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFLDqXN1bcOpIG9yIHJlc3VtZT8=?=

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Re: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFLDqXN1bcOpIG9yIHJlc3VtZT8=?=

That seems to have been Ron's doing (or Newsguy's). Ant's original
post was ISO 8859-1 in quoted-printable encoding:

Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9sum=E9?= or resume?

These days many clients work in Unicode internally (or something
horrible like UTF-16, especially on Windows) and do not preserve the
original encoding.

-GAWollman

[Lewis]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Re: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFLDqXN1bcOpIG9yIHJlc3VtZT8=?=

That is what you see because you are using a newsreader that is still
stuck in the 1990s.

And yes, USENET is the worst place to ask this because much of it is
firmly planted in the 1990s. The world has moved on. UTF-8 works pretty
much everywhere.

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by Lewis
And yes, USENET is the worst place to ask this because much of it is
firmly planted in the 1990s.

That modern?

Owain

[Ant]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Ant
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

It would be better to omit the accent marks unless you know that the
document will not be passing through stages that will mangle the
character encoding...the word has been known to reach recipients as
"risumi" in some cases....r

Good point. Thanks. :)
--
Quote of the Week: "I got worms! That's what we're going to call it.
We're going to specialize in selling worm farms. You know like ant
farms. What's the matter, a little tense about the flight?" --Lloyd
Christmas (Dumb and Dumber movie)
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / http://antfarm.ma.cx
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )

[Lewis]

Post by Ant
Hello.
Which one would be better to use for its correct spelling online? Or
does it not matter?

use the accents and send a PDF or be sure and post to a web site that
uses UTF-8 (that is, check if the site handles accents). Otherwise,
use plain ASCII 7 bit and omit the accents.