Re: When is glyph decomposition warranted?

From: Jonathan Coxhead (jonathan@doves.demon.co.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 30 1999 - 16:50:15 EDT


 | > + is just a "not -" and therefore crossed out
 | Or is - really + with the vertical bar subtracted ("minused")?

   No, '-' precedes the first use of '+' by a long time. Before there
were negative numbers (i e, before there were account legers), all
numbers were positive. '+' was only needed for contrast after '-'
came into use.

 | > $ = S + |
 | Or is it an S with two vertical bars? If so how would that be decomposed? As
 | three slots?

   "However you like", I guess :-)

 | > @ is just an "a" in a circle
 | Is it a zero, an "oh", or a circle?

   It's just a circle.

 | How are we to define composite glyphs anyway? -
 | historically (G = C + ,(approximation))
 | visually (V = \ + /)
 | or both (W = V + V = \ + / + \ + /)?

   Same as '$'.

 | Seriously, are these the true histories of these glyphs?
 |
 | What about #, %, *, & =? Are they composites historically?

   '#' is derived from L B BAR SYMBOL (\u2114) used to represent
pounds weight.

   '%'---don't know for sure, but it would be hard to believe that
the two circles are unrelated to the two '0's in '100', or that the
'/' is nothing to do with the '/' in a/c (ACCOUNT OF, \u2100)---a
generic "separator".

   '&' is a ligature of 'E' and 't' (\u0045\u0074) for the Latin word
for 'and'.

   '*'---don't know, but I'd guess it was just a eye-catching
geometrical figure put to various uses (if it any historical use
other than indicating a footnote).

   Also---'/': derived from an elongated 's' for 'shilling'. Not used
for division until the Computer Age, as far as I know.

        /|
 o o o (_|/
        /|
       (_/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:51 EDT