# Re: When is glyph decomposition warranted?

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