Re: Claudian letters

From: John Hudson (
Date: Mon May 30 2005 - 14:50:38 CDT

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: Claudian letters"

    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
    Vancouver, BC
    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