From: Martin Kochanski (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Oct 02 2002 - 08:56:00 EDT
To be correctly spelt, it would have to be omicron + upsilon: from your description, the appearance resembles that more closely as well.
Old Latin orthography had all sorts of lovely contractions, many of them context-dependent: I seem to remember that u~ would mean "us" in "hominibus" but "um" in "gentium". But if that doesn't get you close enough to a nervous breakdown, look at the ligatures in printed *Greek* of (say) the 17th century. It's well up to Sanskrit standards!
At 13:38 02/10/02 +0200, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>I am trying to identify a Greek glyph found in an ancient Latin text. I have
>not seen what it looks like, but it has been described to me as an "8" with
>the top circle opened.
>The sign was in a word looking like "8???" ("8rôn") and which, according to
>the text, corresponds to Latin "urina". If I understand correctly, the text
>also says that this sign is a diphthong which in Doric was substituted by a
>plain "?" (omega): "Nam olem a Graecis per <8> diphthongum scribebatur, quae
>Dorice in ? solet commutari".
>Therefore, I tentatively identified the word as "?????" ("ôurôn"), and the
>unknown glyph ligature as an "??" ligature ("ôu": omegha + upsilon).
>Does anyone know whether such a ligature actually existed in old typography?
>And was it anything like an open "8"?
>Thanks in advance for any info.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 02 2002 - 09:41:56 EDT