Re: [Groff] german localization

[Erich Hoffmann]

Hi,

I think it's difficult to get to a point in this question.

>>> I think we should have all the rules we might ever need.

In the first moment I agreed, and we should even have a hyphen.00 with
no hyphenation at all, where I am to insert every hyphenation by hand
in order to quote old texts (e.g. Grimmelshausen) correctly.

>> But the rules are contradictory, e.g

Just this seems to be one more argument for multiple hyphenation files.

>> After 2005, the old rules aren't tolerated any longer.

(there are people who don't tolerate the new rules, and really really
not only the eternal middle-aged, but this is not the right group for
that topic)

>Even if citing old texts which you want to look as they
>did when first printed?

There we are.  Imagine I want to cite an old text of, say, Quirinius
Kuhlmann.  Obviously ispell and syntax check is of no use:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Grab Friedrichs von Logau /
des Schlesischen Martialens.


ICh bin aus derer Schaar / di von der Wigen an
Mit aller Weißheit sich zuziren Fleiß gethan:
Drum gab der Musen-Printz mir solche Himmels-
                                  Gaben /
So kaum di Meisten halb / ja kaum nur eintzeln haben.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I met german native speakers who had difficulties in understanding that,
but the point is that in cases comparable to these you have to insert
*everything* by hand.  Think of Heinrich von Kleist!

So I have this problem:  Is there really a case, where you have to cite
texts after the old rules and a hyphenation.de-file could be of any
use?  Hyphenation has always been made by the typesetter, not the
author.  So either it is essential, so you have to insert it by hand, or
it is not, and differs from edition to edition (even if all of them obey
the same rules) - but in this case it doesn't matter and you could use
the new rules as well.  When there is a colon or comma or not, that can
make a real difference, but ba-cken vs. bak-ken?  Would you _really_
realize a new hyphenation as a violation of old texts?  And in cases
where the old hyphenation matters, wouldn't you be a priori insert
everything by hand?  When I cite an old text and want to make shure that
the hyphenation is original, then I'm lost when the length of _my_ lines
differ from the original ones.

Well, I have no decision yet.  Differences in spelling can be
differences in meaning, but I tried to construct a case where
hyphenation makes a difference in meaning and didn't find one.  So - ?


>If there could be a reason for doing it, then I think
>groff should give us the resources to do it if we wish to.

This is always a good principle, people who don't want it just don't use
the resources, and the other have it.



Beste Gruesse,


erich