RE: how to add all latin (and greek) subscripts

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Sat Jul 05 2008 - 05:36:13 CDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: how to add all latin (and greek) subscripts"

    The Hebrew letters have right-to-left bidi property (R):
    05D0;HEBREW LETTER ALEF;Lo;0;R;;;;;N;;;;;
    05D1;HEBREW LETTER BET;Lo;0;R;;;;;N;;;;;
    05D2;HEBREW LETTER GIMEL;Lo;0;R;;;;;N;;;;;
    05D3;HEBREW LETTER DALET;Lo;0;R;;;;;N;;;;;

    The symbols have a different BiDi property (L), better suited for math expressions:

    2135;ALEF SYMBOL;Lo;0;L;<compat> 05D0;;;;N;FIRST TRANSFINITE CARDINAL;;;;
    2136;BET SYMBOL;Lo;0;L;<compat> 05D1;;;;N;SECOND TRANSFINITE CARDINAL;;;;
    2137;GIMEL SYMBOL;Lo;0;L;<compat> 05D2;;;;N;THIRD TRANSFINITE CARDINAL;;;;

    I think that is the reason for the duplicate encoding and that is also why they cannot be canonically equivalent
    with the respective original letter. A font need not have different glyphs for these symbols as opposed to the
    respective letters (if the font covers both sets). But the symbols and letters here behave differently for bidi purposes.
        /kent k


    From: [] On Behalf Of philip chastney
    Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 2:07 AM
    To: Mark E. Shoulson
    Subject: Re: how to add all latin (and greek) subscripts

    --- On Fri, 4/7/08, Mark E. Shoulson <> wrote:

    From: Mark E. Shoulson <>
    Subject: Re: how to add all latin (and greek) subscripts
    Cc:, "'Ondrej Certik'" <>,
    Date: Friday, 4 July, 2008, 5:22 PM

    [...] Properly speaking, this isn't even a U+05D0 HEBREW
    LETTER ALEF, it's really a U+2135 ALEF SYMBOL (even annotated as
    transfinite cardinal", which is what we're dealing with here).

    an interesting observation

    I have often wondered why the natural exponent (e = 2.718..) gets its own symbol, pi does not, and the imaginary symbol can be be represented in a number of ways

    U+2126 (Ohm), U+212A (Kelvin) and U+2128 (Angstrom) are fully equivalenced, yet U+2135..U+2138 (alef, bet, gimel, dalet) are only considered to be approximately equal to their natural language forbears

    is there, perhaps, a pre-existing standard with these four Hebrew letters encoded?

    I cannot recall a single text which didn't use an aleph symbol that had been borrowed from a brush script or calligraphic-style Hebrew font, and which consequently looked out of kilter with the rest of the notation

    what, then, is the distinction between aleph as a "symbol" and the Hebrew letter?



    Not happy with your email address?
    Get the one you really want <> - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! <>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 05 2008 - 05:38:35 CDT