Re: Obsolete characters

From: Mark Davis (
Date: Thu Jan 22 2009 - 11:27:20 CST

  • Next message: David Starner: "Re: Obsolete characters"

    I tried 'obsolete', but that doesn't work either. What we need is a pithy
    term or phrase for "not in customary modern use", so if you can think of
    one.... "Nonmodern"? (ugg)


    On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 15:50, Asmus Freytag <> wrote:

    > 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).
    > Mark,
    > 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 No longer current or applicable; antiquated: 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.
    > A./

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 22 2009 - 11:30:11 CST