Re: SS symbol -- was: Re: Uppercase is coming? (U+1E9E)

From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (marnen@marnen.org)
Date: Tue May 08 2007 - 15:14:50 CDT

  • Next message: Werner LEMBERG: "Re: _Uppercase__is_coming?__(U+1E9E)"

    On May 8, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

    > Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
    >
    >> On May 8, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> When this has been suggested, the answer usually given is that
    >>> this is to be considered a pair of (variant) U+16CB RUNIC LETTER
    >>> SIGEL LONG-BRANCH-SOL S (ᛋ). I think that was the rune suggested.
    >>
    >> That may well be correct. It does square with the glyph's origin,
    >> and it may make sense to encode it as an optional ligature.
    > Maybe, though I'm not sure it has to be a ligature when two
    > characters will do (were the wartime fonts and typewriters equipped
    > with an ᛋ key to be hit twice, or a ᛋᛋ key? I suspect the
    > latter, actually).

    As far as I know, you are correct.

    >
    > OTOH, it could be argued that the sets of acceptable glyphs are
    > different. To be sure, the SS-letter is (or can be considered) a
    > SIGEL, but the ᛋ symbol, at least in the fonts I've seen it, would
    > not have been acceptable for the SS, unless it was the particular
    > glyph variant with the vertical lines more slanted.

    Right. According to Wikipedia, this Sigel variant was taken from
    an...er...*idiosyncratic* futhark. Whether it should be considered
    more than a font variation is another question.

    [...]
    >> How about MANJI and a variant selector? That should do the trick,
    >> and do so more elegantly than a separate code point.
    > No, no, no. The Nazi swastika isn't a MANJI and never was one.
    > They look vaguely alike, but they aren't the same character, any
    > more that Latin "a" and Greek "α" are. They differ in appearance,
    > usage, and meaning. I doubt there's even any overlap in acceptable
    > shapes.

    I would guess that there's plenty of overlap, disregarding the
    mirroring (manji points CCW, Nazi swastika points CW).

    > The MANJI is upright and usually thin-stroked, and for that matter
    > the CJK ones normally show brushstrokes on them.

    I have *never* seen a CJK manji with brushstrokes evident. Never
    once. This is true even if the surrounding Chinese characters are
    written in a style where brushstrokes are evident.

    [...]
    > The Nazi swastika is tipped forty-five degrees and the arms are 1:3
    > rectangles.

    The 45-degree tilt is what makes the big difference in my opinion.

    > And it isn't any kind of kanji.

    Neither is the manji, any more than the onsen symbol. It just sort
    of got lumped in with the kanji for lack of a better place.

    >
    > ~mark
    >

    Best,

    -- 
    Marnen Laibow-Koser
    marnen@marnen.org
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 08 2007 - 15:16:15 CDT