Claudian letters

From: Ernest Cline (
Date: Mon May 30 2005 - 14:07:28 CDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Claudian letters"

    I came across by accident a Wikipedia article on the Claudian
    letters. This inspired me to also search the list archives
    and to make the following comments based on all of this.

    1) Based on what is admittedly only an unsourced Wikipedia
    article, I'm not convinced that LEFT TACK is an appropriate
    choice to represent Claudius' chopped in half H. First, there is
    the minor matter of glyph. The horizontal bar of LEFT TACK is
    longer than the similar shaped Claudian letter. RIGHT TACK and
    ASSERTION differ in their glyphs only in the length of the
    horizontal bar, which implies that bar length is significant for
    the TACK characters. The image in the Wikipedia article on the
    Claudian letters looks more like a reversed ASSERTION than a
    LEFT TACK. In addition the properties aren't quite right.
    (I'm assuming that the description of this character in the
    previous mailing list discussion as a RIGHT TACK was a case of
    a mistaken character name. If not and the original respondent
    was referring to a glyph shaped like the left half of a capital H
    instead of the right half, then glyphic variation within the
    Claudian letter would be an even stronger argument for a separate

    2) Property issues also form a weak argument in favor of a
    reversed C character separate from ROMAN NUMERAL REVERSED ONE
    HUNDRED, but without glyph issues as in the case of LEFT TACK,
    I'm not that convinced that it should be separate, especially
    since it may be that Claudius based his reversed C letter on
    this numeral.

    character is not added instead), along with TURNED CAPITAL F,
    need to be appropriately glossed for their usage as Claudian
    letters, especially since they are not in any of the Latin
    character blocks.

    Ernest Cline

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 30 2005 - 14:09:34 CDT