From: "Kenneth Whistler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Given Nick Nicholas' explanation of the antisigma, it
> seems correct that no currently encoded Unicode 3.0
> could be considered to *be* that character. We would need
> reversed form of U+03F2 GREEK LUNATE SIGMA SYMBOL
> to have the version appropriate to Greek text.
> However, as a Latin adaptation, you should also consider
> that there already *is* a reversed Latin capital C in the
> U+2183 ROMAN NUMERAL REVERSED ONE HUNDRED.
Yes, I had mentioned this as one of the possibilities to
encode the antisigma (the other possibility being U+0186).
[ Incidentally not only is the meaning different here, but
the origin of this reversed one hundred does not appear,
according to Ifrah, to be a sigma, a C or even a cognate of
the numeral one hundred, instead it apparently represents a
part of circle used in counting large numbers (1 full circle
(a C, an I and a reversed C) = 1000, 2 left semicircles (an
I and 2 reversed C) = 5*1000, 2 full circles = 10*1000,
etc.). D = 500 is actually an I + 1 semicircle.]
> Also, there already *is* a turned Latin capital F in the
> encoding: U+2132 TURNED CAPITAL F.
I missed it !
> (Unless the digamma inversum is being
> > represented with an *inverted* capital F, instead of a
> *turned*> capital F.)
No, it's turned. Just like U+2132.
> Both of these character *could* be used as approximations
> for the Latin adaptation as you see it in the linguistic
Latin, like in Latin script ? And why only in this case ?
> They would more or less accurately represent what the
> was doing -- though would not be appropriate for the
> form of the text.
Two questions to clarify the concept of appropriateness here
1) why is it acceptable in the French text and not the
2) the original text for two of these characters would
actually be Latin (language and script), does this make a
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:01 EDT