From: "Kenneth Whistler" <kenw@sybase.com>
> Given Nick Nicholas' explanation of the antisigma, it
> seems correct that no currently encoded Unicode 3.0
character
> could be considered to *be* that character. We would need
a
> 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
> encoding:
> 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
lexicon.
Latin, like in Latin script ? And why only in this case ?
> They would more or less accurately represent what the
editor
> was doing -- though would not be appropriate for the
original
> 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
original ?
2) the original text for two of these characters would
actually be Latin (language and script), does this make a
difference ?
Patrick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:01 EDT