Talk:Ligature (writing)

Image Caption

There seems to be some confusion about the image at the top of the page, which is a ligature of a long s ("ſ") and an i (as identified in the image description). Knulclunk changed the caption to identify it as a fi ligature which is incorrect due to the lack of a cross-bar. The long s has a nub on its left side at cross-bar height, which adds to the confusion. markegli (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

==Meme-in-the-making: Oh my FDF2 (OMﷲ). Oh my Allah, to be used in Middle-East contexts. RussianReversal (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use this "ft" ligature instead to avoid confusion.--Knulclunk (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"ß"

Originally, the German letter "ß" was a "long s" -- "small s" ligature. – Torsten Bronger 07:18, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was going to make the same comment. Historically, ß was a ligature:

-- Dominus 05:52, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. I think the situation is as follows: Historically it is an ſ–s-Ligature. But in old Gothic types this ligature could be mistaken for an sz. Willberg has a convincing figure in his book "Schriften erkennen" that illustrates this.

This mis-interpretation made many typographers to cut typefaces with a real sz ligature, especially in the post-Gothic era, when this mixing-up wouldn't have occcur actually since the Antiqua typefaces are very clear.

So, although it bases on a mis-interpretation, it has happened some 600 years ago, and it is valid to say that the "ß" may also be an sz ligature. In Times New Romen, it's an sz, in Garamond it's an ſs. – Torsten Bronger 07:31, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Table

"Not all browser/operating system combinations will render the table correctly". Can someone make graphics? They definitely don't all show up on mine. - Omegatron

Is that really needed? Surely it is obvious what these ligatures looks like: 'oe' looks like an e connected to an o. Jor 17:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

well, they vary from just two letters stuck together (the A and E being "tipped" for instance), and the article that directed me to this article had a ligature "st" mentioned with an arc over the letters or something, and i was wondering what it looked like. The html version doesn't show up in my browser. I think that is reason enough to have graphics. I will do it eventually if no one else will. - Omegatron

I substituted a bitmap for the character table. – Torsten Bronger 20:07, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nice work on the graphic, however I am re-adding the table. If only because the characters there can be copy&pasted by anyone if wanted. Jor 20:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"W"

Removed:

Thus our w is also a ligature.

Eh? -- Karada 00:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not difficult to see what whoever wrote this had in mind, but I agree that "w" is not a ligature. I have just learned, however, that it is an approximant, which has got to count for something. -- Itai 00:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"fffl"

Somewhere it could be noted that in older German spelling there was (purportedly) a need for an fffl ligature for one compound word: Sauerstoffflasche, meaning oxygen tank. This has since been reformed to Sauerstofflasche under a rule that triple letters are to be avoided. --FOo 20:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can you find a source for that? Sounds odd, but just may be true :-) — Jor (Talk) 20:21, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First, Sauerstoffflasche has always been spelt like that, it wasn't affected by the reform. Secondly, due to (probably not only) German rules ligatures are broken up at sub-word boundaries, so it's merely an "ff" ligature followed by an "fl" ligature. – Torsten Bronger 07:33, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's a point, Torsten. I just wanted to note the same, that the paragraph

The Requiem Italic by Jonathan Hoefler is probably the only font that has designed the extremely rare fffl ligature, to be used at least in two German words: Sauerstoffflasche (oxygen tank) and Sauerstoffflaschenspuler (oxygen tank cleanser). This same typeface has plenty of other unusual ligatures, such as stfl for "mistflower", cta for "octagon", ttfr for "Gottfried", a German name, tfl for "outflanked", sfy for "satisfying", ctfi for "factfinding", stfi for "Eastfield" and stfj for "Vestfjorden", and many others.

simply contains false information. According to German typographical tradition ligatures are not allowed over morpheme boundaries, such also not over word boundaries in case of compound words. Thus, fffl would NOT be used in Sauerstoffflasche, and similarly, ttfr would not be used in Gottfried (rather tt + fr ligature, if any). I do believe, that the original editor (or if he took the examples from the font's description) was just trying to find some examples "with brute force" without knowing (German) typography well. Which is a don't-don't concerning an article dealing with... well, typography (as Ligatures do). I'm definitely going to remove the examples at least, if I do not encounter objection. Szabi 12:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not really false information. For artistic reasons, it may well be appropriate to use these ligatures. It doesn't claim that they are mandatory after all. However, it is not really clear either, so a clarification would certainly be helpful. – Torsten Bronger 12:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

good article

fascinating. i am such a nerd. good work all. 141.211.231.113 01:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cyrillic letters != ligatures

Article says that Ы Ю Я are ligatures, but they are not. They are regular Cyrillic letters.

Yozh 01:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

they originated as ligatures, just like w. dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing info

In the article:

Formerly there were the additional members for "fa", "fe", "fo", ...

What happened to these ligatures? The paragraph is incomplete.

"fj"

What about "fjord"? That's an English word. æle ✆ 01:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Arabic ligature

I would argue that the article's description of ligature in the Arabic script is not quite accurate. "And in the Arabic alphabet, which has a very "fluid" shape, there is usually ligature between every single letter." however, the article describes a ligature as "two or more letterforms...written or printed as a unit."

As a rule, when Arabic letters are connected, they are not truly written or printed as a unit. It is much like Cursive writing in English (and others). In a cursive English font, for instance, there is not a keystroke or character for every combination of adjancent letter, each is simply designed so that when they touch, the letter will still be connected. Granted, Arabic has several forms of each letter, such that a letter is writen differently depending on whether it comes first, last, or in the middle of a word or near a non-connecting letter.

There is (at least) one true ligature in Arabic, which is the "Laam-Alif", two letters with sounds similar to our English "L" and "A". The ligature is used often, most frequently when a noun beginning with Alif is made definite (and therefore the "Alif-Laam" definite article is added before the initial Alif of the word). Also, with the proper vocalization, "Laam-Alif" is the Modern Standard Arabic word for "No". Some Arabic keyboards also have a ligature for the name of God, the Shahadah, and the blessings spoken and written after mentioning a Prophet or companion of the Prophet.

You are correct. The sentence you reference does not make sense, and was clearly written by someone who did not read the first sentence of this article. I am going to remove it and replace it with a separate one-sentence-long paragraph mentioning the Laam-Alif ligature.

Cal 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Emigre: Mrs Eaves

I do not understand the relevence of the link to the Mrs. Eaves typeface in the external links section and am curious if it is spam. However, I don't really know.

Mrs Eaves is well-known amongst typographers for its superfluous ligatures. jr98664 06:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"AE" / "OE"

æ (e dans l'a in french) is not a true ligature. It is really a regular letter. In caps, it is a regular lettre too. It would not be true if it was a ligature. 62.212.120.116 16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dutch "ij"?

It says: "The letter ij is derived from "II" (double-I), and has similarly a distinct letter in Dutch."

This is confusing to me--I don't know what "the letter ij" refers to, and in Dutch I thought that "ij" was written like a "y" with umlauts...so what do 'l's have to do with it? Critic9328 05:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

IJ is not written as ÿ in Dutch, except in some limited (pre-Unicode) 8-bit encodings, and then unofficially. The letter ij is considered a single letter in Dutch by most, just like the German ß(a ſz ligature) is by most German.

Before spelling was centralized IJ was also written y, ii, iy, etc.—but this is meaningless in modern Dutch. Afrikaans, which developed out of contact between Dutch and African languages, uses an y where comparable Dutch words use ij. ÿ was, I believe, never used until mechanical typewriters and later PCs came about. And even most mechanical typewriters sold in the Netherlands include(d) an IJ key.

That IJ developed out of an II (double I) ligature is well attested from early and middle Dutch texts. I'm not sure why you believe the letter L has anything to do with this, perhaps your browser is configured to use a font where lowercase L and uppercase i are identical? -- Jordi·✆ 12:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

ß is not considered a letter in German (except by people who do not make the distinction between 'letter' and 'ligature', of course). Case in point, it is equivalent to ss in alphabetical order. Otoh, ä, ö, ü are borderline cases, they may be considered independent letters, or equivalent to ae, oe, ue, or again equivalent to a, o, u (viz., in alphabetical order) in German. dab (ᛏ) 12:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Numero sign?

Is the numero sign a ligature? —mjb 07:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No. It is a number-like symbol. -- Jordi·✆ 12:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

what's "number-like" about it? dab (ᛏ) 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

W "not a tue ligature"?

While VV developed into W, the modern Latin letter W is not a true ligature as it represents a different sound from VV/UU.

Well, so do Æ and Œ, in several languages... FilipeS 16:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

true, that's not a point at all. English doesn't even have the digraph uu, and vv only for purely orthographical reasons. dab (ᛏ) 16:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Where are the editors of this article getting all the information from? Initially you had online sources under the heading "References" (or was it "sources"?), so I changed that heading to "External links". Online sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Every piece of information must be from a verifiable print source. This is official WP policy.

From the talk on this talk page it appears the editors are deciding the facts concerning ligatures by conferencing between themselves. Correct me if I am wrong about that.

Please add valid print references.
Arbo talk 13:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Online sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Every piece of information must be from a verifiable print source. This is official WP policy."

Which policy? -- Jordi·✆ 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:REF contains no section on this. In fact, it mentions online sources throughout! -- Jordi·✆ 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:REF may have changed since I last read it, or I misremembered the information. Nonetheless you present a limited view of the WP help articles on this matter, referencing only one page and then generalizing about its content.

In essence, I meant things like this:

Official policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

The above policy rules out Blogdorf on ligatures. I read that blog and I can tell you from having designed a dozen fonts myself that the contributors to the blog do not posess an intrinsic or complete understanding of typographic ligatures. They have a functional general understanding of the subject, but cannot be considered experts.

From the same official policy: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications."

According to that "Hoefler & Frere-Jones Requiem font", and "Emigre: Mrs Eaves ligatures" may be accaptable. Knowing these people and their type design work, I can confirm that they do indeed know what they're talking about. Zuzana Licko and Jonathan Hoefler are two of the world's leading typeface designers and have been previously published in print, and can be considered authorative and reliable.

Guidelines

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources:

"Typically peer-reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable."

"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources as secondary sources: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." (this is what I meant)

The reliability of sources, print or online, sets the absolute limit on the reliability of WP articles: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Finding good sources "Until more authors publish online, and more material is uploaded, some of the most reliable and informative sources are still available only in printed form."

Print sources only is not official policy, but you can see what I'm getting at. An article on a historical subject like Ligature should have more than a blog and the websites of two self-published commercial type designers as references. Readers should not be expected to assume such an article is authorative unless it has more reliable online sources or print sources backing it up.

At least the article now has one print reference and is much improved from our edits. Thanks for for helping out. All of my edits and everything I've said here are in good faith. Apologies if my editing seemed aggressive.
Arbo talk 08:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

On Ligature (palaeography) there's a long-standing proposal to merge it with this article. I agree. We can't explain typographical ligatures without explaining handwritten ligatures first, and parts of this article devoted to handwritten ligatures are much longer than entire Ligature (palaeography) article. I propose name "Ligature (writing)". Nikola 05:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that ligatures had their origins in manuscripts, the development of moveable type created a new artistic field. Merging typographical ligatures with paleographic ligatures would have the same implication as merging calligraphy with desktop publishing. 41.242.15.146 11:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But we can't even explain well what a typographical ligature is without going first through handwritten ligatures, and that article currently is a single-sentenct stub. Nikola 10:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Shouldn't the paleographic information be expanded or the information on the typographic ligature page be appended onto the paleographic page instead of merging them. 41.242.15.146 11:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the merger [edit, I just note that it is even my own suggestion]: the point is that Ligature (palaeography) is just a stub. Make it a h2 section here. If it grows larger, it can always be made a full article again and linked with {{main}}. dab (𒁳) 12:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic ligatures

What about the Cyrillic characters Љ and Њ? AWN2 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ligatures of ЛЬ and НЬ, they're in the article. Nikola 10:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dollar sign

Amended to say $ "probably" originated as a ligature, as the article lists several other possibilities. Rojomoke 10:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Swedish ligatures?

The article lists swedish as a language with special ligatures but does not give any example. The swedish alphabet has a-z and three additional characters ÅÄÖ (åäö). It don't think any of these are ligatures, am I missing something? Foolip 09:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

From the article "In writing and typography, a ligature occurs where two or more letter-forms are joined as a single glyph." Matt (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure there exist any academic sources for this (I'm not a scholar). But it is quite evident when you read a lot of older scribbles, manuscripts and books in Swedish. I've added Nordisk familjebok as one source. That is the closest thing to an authorative source that I can find (not that it is worse than 99% of the other "authoritive" sources on wikipedia).

The Ä and Ö started as AE and OE. They evolved to Ä and Ö pretty much the same as in German. If you like to see a middleform you can look at Bureus' Runa ABC boken[1]. It is also printed in that oddball fractura currensis (I'm not sure of the Latin spelling, but I'm pretty sure there is no English word for this writing form, kurrentfraktur is the Swedish word (there are German kurrents but they are generally not fraktures, and vice versa)), that became predominant in print of Swedish printed text for decades after he invented it.

The Å started as AA. Swedish had a change in pronounciation (stora vokaldansen) and needed to be able to depict more sounds in writting and still keep old writing readable. Å was one of the devices that was invented to come to terms with this. Runa ABC boken, previously mentioned, use another competing letter form, an A with another A on top.

--Se mj (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Spanish DE ligature

Spanish DE ligature glyph

Hand-painted Spanish DE ligature

Here is a photo of the Spanish DE ligature which I've now seen three times. This one is from a hand-painted sign in Oaxaca state, Mexico. I've also seen it used in an azulejo either in Spain or Mexico but can't remember the details.

In any case I can't find much information on this ligature on the Internet and I believe it's not covered by Unicode.

— Hippietrail (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• cervantesvirtual.com uses the DE ligature as their favicon logo

  — Hippietrail (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is awefully similar to the capital eth and may just be incorrect usage, just like thorn (letter) is used incorrectly as a funky p in some places, D with stroke (disambiguation) mentions this ligature but may be an edit after this entry?

I am asking as it appears to be a ligature of two capital letters, which is unusual. as the convention that you can write solely in upper caps is a recent one, with the exception of monument inscriptions (Capital letters (majuscules) was the alphabet written on Roman inscriptions, later in manuscripts they warped and became minuscules with the first letter of the page being a lettera notabilior (often gilded, with pictures etc) often similar to the inscriptional letters (or not), which confused people in the renaissance who created upper and lower case. ). As mentioned in Scribal abbreviation, de- can be written with a minuscule d with a stroke. --Squidonius (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ligature, diphthong and historical confusion

This page is seriously confused in its presentation of 'common' ligatures and their equivalents. We should be drawing a greater distinction between presentation ligatures, diphthong ligatures and historical ligatures:

Presentational: Any 'ffi' run can be replaced by its ligature, and vice versa.

Diphthong: Letters such as 'æ' can be replaced by 'ae' but NOT vice versa (in general).

Historical: Letters and symbols such as 'W' and '&' may once have been ligatures, but can no longer be considered so.

The table is misleading and the graphic is ridiculous ('Et -> &' - really? So 'Ethanol' can be typeset '&hanol' can it?)

nemo (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unicode

Latin-Extended D has a number of weird vowel ligatures, viz.:

aa, ao, au, av, ay, oo, vy (U+A732-A73D, A74E/A74F and A760/A761)

I can guess their origin in medieval hand-lettering – they were just less popular than æ and œ. Should these be mentioned?212.137.63.86 (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it's time to refrain from adding mention of yet more ligatures to the article unless they shed some new light on the greater topic. After all, the abbreviation article doesn't contain every abbreviation ever used (nor should it). —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So what to do with "novel" ligatures?

What should we do with all the "novel" ligatures (e. g Spanish DE ligature) that are posted on this talk page? Are there any historic infos on them? Should we mention them somewhere under a "modern ligatures"-section? — Tirk·fl ^“…” 11:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing new or novel about the Spanish DE ligature. It is in fact very old and out of fashion. It is so rare now that I can't find much information on the Internet. In my ongoing investigations I today received from a typographer that "It is still used occasionally today to give a formal appearance, at least in Spain. As for the time period, I study golden age lit where it was used heavily (also ß for ss)". Modern / novel ligatures would not interest me in the same way. — Hippietrail (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not suppose that it would be really "novel", therefore the double quotes. Shouldn't we add it to the article and "revive" its use? — Tirk·fl ^“…” 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to but I know so little about it. There is no Unicode support, no mention of it in the RAE dictionary, very few discussions on the net, and the ones I have found ask more questions than they provide answers. Besides the photo I took myself I have only found two other images and I've requested permission to use one on the wikis. I have been told that I would find examples on www.cervantesvirtual.com but I've had not luck so far. In Australia the internet buckling under heave usage for the holidays it seems. And now I hear Spanish also used "ß" which I have never seen! We don't yet have enough info to put in the article... — Hippietrail (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The RAE concerns itself more with the everyday language than anything. Since a DE ligature is impossible to type, it would essentially fall out of their self-imposed scope. I will send them a query on it though. To be precise, Unicode *does* support it, because the DE ligature is simply a presentation form for U+0044 U+0045. Any OpenType font can be set up apply the ligature regardless of the fact that the text is split into two letters. Re the ß, Spanish, like most (all?) Latin-script langauges used the mixed form for s, with both s and ſ being used. While in modern Spanish this would be a non-issue for causing a ligation, given that modern Spanish does not use a double s, in older Spanish it was common (pasar --> passar in old Spanish) and occasionally, and almost always in italic faces, would get the two letters ligated into an eszett. It did not serve a different fonetic function, as you could find, for example, the previous example written "passar", "paßar", "paſsar" and "paſſar" (but not pasſar, as far as I've ever seen). If you look hard enough you'll find the eszett used in almost any language that allowed double s (English included). If you go down the A6 in Spain near the Aravaca/Pozuelo exit there's a place called Casa de Monaco which uses the lig. If you go to the center of Madrid, on the street signs you'll find more than just the DE ligature. Matthew Stuckwisch (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Handwritten Dutch ij

The article currently uses capital Y and small ÿ in a 'script' font to illustrate what handwritten IJ and ij look like. This is bad. Most computers do not have a font named 'script' installed. So the actually used typeface varies. And chance is small that a calligraphic-style typeface is used. The displayed Y and ÿ simply end up nowhere resembling handwritten IJ and ij. I would suggest that someone contribute a photo showing Dutch handwriting. IMHO, that is even better than an image created from some digitalized typeface. Kxx (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We could use this image. It's not great (apparently written using the mouse), but it can be a placeholder until there is a better illustration. --dab (𒁳) 08:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Inability for viewers to render all characters/ligatures within this article

While reviewing this article, I noted that several sentences, such as this one:

"Rarer ligatures also exist, such as Ꜳꜳ, Ꜵꜵ, Ꜷꜷ, Ꜹꜹ, Ꜻꜻ, Ꜽꜽ, Ꝏꝏ, ᵫ, ᵺ, Ỻỻ and Ꜩꜩ."

....did not render properly (except for the eight and ninth characters/ligatures) on my Windows based Internet Explorer and Firefox viewers. On my IE browser, all unrendered characters are represented by single empty rectangles. On my Firefox viewer, each Unicode character is represented by a double set of rectangles, ex: the first character represented by a pair of rectangles, after the words 'such as', contained the code pair: A732 and A733.

What setting or LIP needs to implemented to properly view all characters or ligatures within the article? Also, would it be possible to add a warning/caution notice at the top of the article page to inform readers that certain viewing parameters need to be met for a complete rendering of the article? Such caution boxes exist on other articles containing uncommon scripts. Thanks --HarryZilber (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added {{SpecialChars}} to the lead section. The ligatures in the quoted sentence probably should go into the table under the Ligatures in Unicode (Latin-derived alphabets) section for better presentation.Kxx (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

For Windows, I suggest using the "Identify Characters" add-on to Firefox, followed by the latest version of "Babel Map" which includes a tool to tell you which fonts contain some specific character. I've seen a funny char once that simply looked wrong in the font that was chosen (Firefox will apparently look for some font containing a rare character), as well as letters that simply aren't in any installed font.

Swedish and W: We used to spell with WH and W too

F, FV, V, W and WH was used in Swedish to depict different sounds now all spelled with V; with slightly different spelling in different dialects (we didn't have one standard spelling, every large publisher had one of its own). Those sounds are still present in most Swedish dialects, not in the dialects around our capital city or the most southern parts of Sweden, though. In the 1889 spelling reform they were all replaced by V.

The use of W and WH corresponded pretty close to that in modern day English spelling. Whenever I have to write an English word and I'm not sure of how to spell, I say the corresponding Swedish word out loud in my dialect and can usually hear/feel how it should be spelled (even better than if I hear the word in English spoken by somebody else), at least when it comes to V, W, WH, T and TH (modern Swedish usually spell "English TH" with T or D). (English could easily be mistaken as a very simplistic Swedish dialect, the only difference is: English has changed the meaning of old words more than Swedish, no use of tonality whatsoever, less then half of the Swedish speech sounds, different spelling, a lot of grammar missing, the few preposition left is put to random new use, few composite words, and it has a much smaller common vocabulary. Old English actually feels closer to modern Swedish dialects than to modern English. ;-)

I'm not sure this old use of W is worth incorporating in this article though. The Swedish Wikipedia article on the Swedish spelling reform of 1889 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Se mj (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The ct ligature

Does anybody have the numeric character reference for the ct ligature? I have thus far been unable to find it. If anybody knows what it is, I would recommend adding it to the article.

Thanks, 98.117.49.203 (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)