From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Mon May 30 2005 - 14:50:38 CDT
Ernest Cline wrote:
> 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.
Conversely, the numeral use of this letter may be a repurposed leftover of the Claudian
reform. Georges Ifrah's _The Universal History of Numbers_ would probably clarify which
usage came first, but I don't have a copy handy.
I would like to see all three Claudian letters unambiguously encoded. The use of LEFT TACK
seems to me particularly problematic, as one may expect it to be a monoline symbol in most
fonts, while the 'half H' should correspond to the style of the uppercase alphabet
characters in a given typeface. [I once made a set of Claudian letters for Adobe's popular
'Trajan' typeface.]
John Hudson
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com Currently reading: Truth and tolerance, by Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger as was A century of philosophy, by Hans Georg Gadamer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 30 2005 - 14:51:27 CDT