Re: Non-decimal positional digits; was: Defined Private Use

• Previous message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters"
• In reply to: Ernest Cline: "Non-decimal positional digits; was: Defined Private Use"
• Next in thread: John Cowan: "Re: Non-decimal positional digits; was: Defined Private Use"
• Reply: John Cowan: "Re: Non-decimal positional digits; was: Defined Private Use"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Also, before it was recognized that there are *also* used as decimal digits
(using some adequate substitute for the zero), Tamil digits 1-9 were seen as
part of a non-decimal-positional system. Nevertheless, they were given class
Nd.

By the way, if the Tengwar system is only duodecimal (as I think), *all* the
digits should then be given class No, none to Nd.

Antoine

• Next message: smontagu@smontagu.org: "RE: New contribution"
• Previous message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters"
• In reply to: Ernest Cline: "Non-decimal positional digits; was: Defined Private Use"
• Next in thread: John Cowan: "Re: Non-decimal positional digits; was: Defined Private Use"
• Reply: John Cowan: "Re: Non-decimal positional digits; was: Defined Private Use"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 28 2004 - 18:50:45 EDT