At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson wrote:
>It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is a
>ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That both
>mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs.
The fact that & is accepted by Swedish readers as a substitute for the
'och' sign, and that the latter seems to be limited to manuscript, suggests
a glyph variant. I do not consider the fact that both mean 'and' to be a
reason for unifying different signs. I ponder whether two different signs
that are apparently used *interchangeably* might be unified?
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit,
das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich
nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte.
... every image of the past that is not recognized by the
present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear
irretrievably.
Walter Benjamin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun Dec 02 2001 - 13:47:42 EST