Re: New contribution N2676

From: Raymond Mercier (raymondM@compuserve.com)
Date: Sat Oct 25 2003 - 16:21:38 CST


>Should we continue to encode this as ARTABE SIGN and just note the use of
> this shape for 'zero' in an annotation?
> Should we change it to another name and add the annotation for 'artabe'?>
> Should we take any other actions?

Well I don't quite know. My real intrest is in the changing shape of the
zero, but I am not yet ready with a proposal.

Besides in the papyri where Kenyon read Artable this symbol is much of the
time coupled with another, the two written rather cursively together in the
papyri. Kenyon carefully records all the different forms, and after seeing
that I am in some doubt about what exactly should be encoded. I suspect that
the new list is based not on the many many symbols given by Kenyon in his
many volumes of transcribed papyri, but on a summary list that he published
before that.
I wish I could be more definite.

Raymond

----- Original Message -----
From: "Asmus Freytag" <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Raymond Mercier" <raymondM@compuserve.com>; <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: New contribution N2676

>
> At 05:51 PM 10/25/03 +0100, Raymond Mercier wrote:
> > Among the new characters in N2676 there is
> >
> > 10186 G GREEK ARTABE SIGN
> >
> > This is one of the many signs found in papyri, such as those edited by
> >Kenyon. This symbol represents apparently a measure of volume used for
> >grain. It appears as a small circle, smaller than omicron, with a long
> >overline, much longer than a macron.
> >
> > While I have been looking for the various forms of the symbol for zero
I
> >find in other papyri quite exacty the same character used for 'zero'. I
make
> >this comparison after studying many photographs of papyri, those provided
> >with Kenyon's editions on the one hand, and on the other, Alexander
Jones'
> >recent volume of horoscopes, Astronomical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus.
> > The attached image is take from Jones, part of a column of zeroes
written
> >this way.
>
> This is fascinating information.
>
> However, I'm unclear what you propose.
>
> Should we continue to encode this as ARTABE SIGN and just note the use of
> this shape for 'zero' in an annotation?
>
> Should we change it to another name and add the annotation for 'arabe'?
>
> Should we take any other actions?
>
> A./



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST