From: Jon Hanna (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jan 23 2007 - 06:06:02 CST
Asmus Freytag wrote:
>> If it's idiosyncratic the private use area should be put to use.
> His use of this may have been idiosyncratic originally, but the use of
> it in studies of his work is not.
A study of an idiosyncratic mark doesn't stop it being idiosyncratic,
and adoption of the mark does though.
Two differening examples from the same author would be Tengwar, which
has been used by people outside of merely talking about Tolkien's use of
it, and Tolkien's monogram, which hasn't.
> Add to that the suspicion, if you will, that if double hyphens show up
> in Schmidt, in Katakana contexts and possibly elsewhere, that there is
> something generic to the concept of doubling a hyphen to make a
> notational point.
Katakana isn't a good argument here, Schmidt wasn't writing Japanese. If
it's in Katakana it is surely a different character entirely.
If there is something generic to the doubling of a hyphen to make a
notational point then that generic quality will be demonstrable by examples.
> Pushing people into
> substituting = because it's the only thing that looks close is just wrong.
Yes. But if it is idiosyncratic then having scholars use a character
from the PUA for Schmidt's idiosyncratic character is right.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 23 2007 - 06:08:40 CST