|
|
Posted by Bernhard Sturm on 06/01/07 09:04
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
> So why do you keep citing bogosities? Besides, what you quote from an
> unspecified source says that the circumflex is _not_ used in Italian; it
> claims that it _was_. There’s a difference, especially if one pretends
> to present _reference_ information on typography.
please, don't be silly: if a modern italian website is going to quote
the title of an (not so old) italian book (e.g. Pisacane, Carlo
[1818-1857] "Scritti varî, inediti o rari"), would you then also claim,
that the circumflex is of no typographical use in the Italian language?
The italian source of Wikipedia indicates, that the circonflesso is
still in use in modern Italian language according to the rule Ben quoted:
salario(sing) -> salarî (plural)
simposio(sing) -> simposî (plural)
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accento_circonflesso
cheers
bernhard
--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|