From: Hans Aberg (haberg@math.su.se)
Date: Mon May 30 2005 - 15:41:38 CDT
At 15:07 -0400 2005/05/30, Ernest Cline wrote:
>
>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
>letter.)
It seems me that none of these mathematical characters have any
semantic connection to the Claudian letters, even though, in the
absence of a correct one, one might attempt to substitute one.
-- Hans Aberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 30 2005 - 15:42:49 CDT