# Re: CSUR Tonal

From: Kent Karlsson (kent.karlsson14@telia.com)
Date: Fri Aug 06 2010 - 05:03:15 CDT

• Next message: AndrÃ© Szabolcs Szelp: "Re: CSUR Tonal"

Den 2010-08-06 11.02, skrev "Andrew West" <andrewcwest@gmail.com>:

> On 6 August 2010 05:14, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:
>>
>> What makes this troublesome for me is that, on the one hand, there are the
>> perfectly ordinary-looking 0 through 8, and on the other hand there are the
>> invented digits for 9 and 11 through 15, and then in the middle there's this
>> bizarre use of an ordinary 9-glyph to mean decimal 10. That's what messes it
>> up for me and makes me think the '9' isn't really a 9, and what the heck,
>> maybe none of the "ordinary" digits are what they appear to be, so let's
>> CSUR-encode all of them.
>
> Looking at the examples shown on
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Nystrom>, it seems to me that
> 0-8 are ordinary digits, and the symbols for 9 through 15 are inverted
> or inverted+modified forms of the digits '7' through '1', so that
> there is some sort of imperfect bilateral symmetry on the clock and
> compass faces, with '0' and '8' as the axis of symmetry. Thus the '9'
> is an inverted '6' (as 16-6=10) not an ordinary '9'. So except for the
> odd glyph forms for 9, 11, 12 and 15 (would be be expected to be
> simple inversions of '7', '5', '4' and '1') it makes sense as a system
> to me.
>
> Anyhow, I do not think the ordinary digits '0' through '8' should be
> encoded in the CSUR.

Nyström himself writes