Re: Finnegans Wake, was Re: comment on L2/06-215

From: Richard Cook (
Date: Sun Jun 25 2006 - 20:43:46 CDT

  • Next message: Otto Stolz: "Re: Surrogate pairs and UTF-8"

    On Jun 25, 2006, at 5:31 PM, John Cowan wrote:

    > Richard Cook scripsit:
    >> I don't know, but, what I want to know is, how much closer does this
    >> bring us to a Unicode _Finnegans Wake_? That book has a few variously
    >> rotated E's, the encoding status of which I've been vaguely thinking
    >> about checking.
    > There are also the rotated Fs in "Face to Face" at 18.36; the first
    > F is rotated 90 degrees deasil, the other rotated 90 degrees
    > widdershins.
    > Jorn Barger notes that Joyce wanted the second F to be mirror-reversed
    > as well, but the typeface did not allow it.

    That's interesting. So, for FW purists, the text ought to have this
    mirrored F as well ... does Barger use it in print? If so, there's
    the attested usage one needs for a proposal ...

    Anyway, the list of links I sent in the earlier message needs to be
    gone through, to check which contain signs (a couple don't), which
    signs are not encoded, which are in the pipeline, and which might be
    put into the pipeline ...

    I think most would agree that FW is important enough in English
    literature that there's a very good argument for encoding any of its
    missing characters ...

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 25 2006 - 21:01:31 CDT