Re: Obsolete characters

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Tue Jan 20 2009 - 17:50:21 CST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Großes Eszett"

    On 1/19/2009 3:59 PM, Mark Davis wrote:
    > "no longer customarily used in modern texts" is pretty much what
    > archaic means. These are listed as Archaic in the Unicode book - if
    > they are not, we should correct that (although it is unclear from your
    > message).

    look at a typical dictionary definition of "archaic":

    1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a much earlier, often more
    primitive period, especially one that develops into a classical stage of
    civilization: <I>an archaic bronze statuette; Archaic Greece.</I>
    2. No longer current or applicable; antiquated: <I>archaic laws.</I>
    3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of words and language that were
    once in regular use but are now relatively rare and suggestive of an
    earlier style or period.

    Spellings can change rather suddenly, therefore, something might no
    longer be in common use, but still lack the sense of "long ago" that
    seems tied up with the term "archaic". As you can see from several of
    the definitions, there's also a decided element of value judgment
    connoted with the use of the term. I believe in the context of Unicode,
    it it would be better if the term "archaic" was reserved for contexts
    where characters or scripts fell out of use centuries ago.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 20 2009 - 17:53:47 CST