Aw: Commercial minus as italic variant of division sign in German and Scandinavian context
The most important word in the comment on 00F7 DIVISION SIGN is occasionally.
In fact, the occasions are such rare that you can live a whole life in germany
without encountering one of them.
On the other hand, 00F7 DIVISION SIGN is used _frequently_ in german schoolbooks to denote ...
division (books aimed at professionals doing math prefer : (COLON) or / (SLASH) for this
purpose, but schoolbooks dont).
2052 commercial minus sign _always_ means subtraction and it has this shape (or the alternate shape ./.)
in all contexts, roman or italic. It is not the italic version of some other symbol.
Hope this helps,
Jrg Knappen
Gesendet:Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2014 um 04:43 Uhr
Von:Leif Halvard Silli xn--mlform-iua@mlform.no
An:unicode@unicode.org
Betreff:Commercial minus as italic variant of division sign in German and Scandinavian context
Thanks to our discussion in July 2012,[1] the Unicode code charts now
says, about 00F7 DIVISION SIGN, this:
occasionally used as an alternate, more visually
distinct version of 2212 {MINUS SIGN} or 2011
{NON-BREAKING HYPHEN} in some contexts
[ snip ]
2052 commercial minus sign
However, I think it can also be added somewhere that commercial minus
is just the italic variant of division minus. Ill hereby argue for
this based on an old German book on commercial arithmetics I have
come accross, plus what the the July 2012 discussion and what Unicode
already says about the commercial sign:
FIRST: IDENTICAL CONTEXTS.
German language is an important locale for the Commercial Minus. In
German, the Commercial minus is both referred to as kaufmnnische
Minus(zeichen) and as buchhalterische Minus (Commercial Minus
Character and Bookkeeper Minus). And, speaking of division minus
in the context I know best, Norway, we find it in advertising
(commercial context) and in book keeping documentation and taxation
forms. Simply put, what the Unicode 6.2 General Punctuation section
says about Commercial Minus, can also be said about DIVISION SIGN used
as minus: U+2052 % commercial minus sign is used in commercial or tax
related forms or publications in several European countries, including
Germany and Scandinavia. So, basically and for the most part, the
commercial minus and the division sign minus occur in the very same
contexts, with very much the same meaning. This is a strong hint that
they are the same character.
SECOND: GERMAN USE OF DIVISION SIGN FOR MINUS IN COMMERCIAL CONTEXT.
Is there any proof that German used both an italics variant and a
non-italics variant of the division minus? Seemingly yes. The book
Kaufmnnische Arithmetik (Commercial arithmetics) from 1825 by
Johann Philipp Schellenberg. By reading section 118 Anhang zur
Addition und Subtraction der Brche [Appendix about the addition and
subtraction of fractions]) at page 213 and onwards,[2] we can conclude
that he describes as commercial use of the division minus, where
the signifies a _negative remainder_ of a division (while the plus
sign is used to signify a positive remainder). Or to quote, from page
214: so wird das Fehlende durch das [Zei]chen (minus) bemerkt, und
bei Berechn[nung der Preis der Waare abgezogen [then the lacking
remainder is marked with the (minus) and withdrawn when the price of
the commodity is calculated]. {Note that some bits of the text are
lacking, I marked my guessed in square brackets.} I did not find (yet)
that he used the italic commercial minus, however, the context is
correct. (My guess is that the italics variant has been put to more
use, in the computer age, partly to separate it from the DIVISION SIGN
or may be simply because people started to see it often in handwriting
but seldom in print. And so would not have recognized it in the form of
the non-italic division sign.)
THIRD: IDENTICAL INTERPRETATION
The word abgezogen in the above quote is interesting since the Code
Charts for 2052 COMMERCIAL MINUS cites the related German word
abzglich. And from the Swedish context, the charts quotes the
_expression_ med avdrag. English translation might be to be withdrawn
or with subtraction/rebate [for]. Simply put, we here see the
commercial meaning.
WHAT ABOUT COMMERCIAL MINUS AS CORRECT SIGN IN SCANDINAVIAN SCHOOLS?
UNICODE 6.3 notes that in some European (e.g. Finnish, Swedish and
perhaps Norwegian) traditions, teachers use the Commercial Minus Sign
to signify that something is correct (whereas a red check mark is used
to signify error). If my theory is right, that commercial minus and
division sign minus are the same signs, how on earth is that possible?
How can a minus sign count as positive for the student?
The answer is, I think, to be found in the Code Charts Swedish
description (med avdrag/with subtraction/rebate). Because, I think
that the correct understanding is not that it means correct or OK.
Rather, it denotes something that is counted in the customer/students
favor. So, you could say it it really means slack, or rebate. So
it really mans
Re: Commercial minus as italic variant of division sign in German and Scandinavian context
Asmus, I am not certain that commercial minus isn’t sometimes used as italics for the ”division sign minus”. For instance, when looking at my message in Firefox [1], the commercial minus looks like a “handwritten” variant of the division sign. I think it would be entirely possible to use a that way looking commercial minus in a Norwegian taxation formulary, for instance. (I attach a screenshot of it.) I suspect that it is a monospace Courier font. Also, I wonder about the claim in the General Punctuation section that commercial minus is used in taxation forms in Scandinavia and Germany. I would dearly like to see the evidence for that claim. I must say that I suspect that the use of the division sign in Norwegian taxation forms for this purpose have been counted in a s evidence for that claim - could it be that our ”straight commercial minus” was counted as, well, a commercial minus? Could it be that the wish to see oneself - or us - in the “German tradition”, made one draw the wrong conclusion about which character we use? Anyway, when I spoke if 2052 as an italic version of 00F7, I meant in the, kind of, “mathematical” sense: Unicode for instance contains both MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC CAPITAL A, and MATHEMATICAL BOLD CAPITAL A, and even if they are (I believe) used for different mathematical purposes, everyone sees and knows that they are variants of one and the same letter - the capital A. And also, in some contexts, one might be able to use a normal capital A instead of the mathematical ones. The same knowledge is not present about 00F7 and 2052. The best would have been if the two characters shared a similar name. For instance, if 00F7 got an additional, synonymous name, like STRAIGHT COMMERCIAL MINUS, or perhaps, better, COMMERCIAL HYPHEN-MINUS. Then the relationship would be clear - or at least clearer. Like MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC CAPITAL A, and MATHEMATICAL BOLD CAPITAL A show, two characters do not need to be 100% synonymous just because their names only differs in a stylistic way, so to speak. When reading Unicode, one is only left to guess about the relationship between 00F7 and 2052. For instance, 2052 is described in the general punctuation - and distinguished there from the ”normal” minus and hyphen-minus, whereas 0057 is not described there. A sentence, there, that said that, in some countries, it is actually the 00F7 and not the 2052, that is used, would be very helpful and enlightenting. Likewise, there is no description of 00F7 amongst the dashes/hyphens. You wrote: Further, while italic (as well as oblique fonts) tend to slant the letter forms, there's not a universal, established practice of turning horizontal dashes into slashes to mark the alternation between roman and italic fonts. From that perspective, considering one the italic variant of the other also appears to be a non-starter. Right. And I can only underline once more that I meant ”italic” as part of the name, see above. You: However, it seems to be possible to establish that these two characters are indeed rather close variants: […] Indeed. The choice of variant, though, is driven by context and tradition for a given type of document, not by choice of font style. And, the choice of using 2052 instead of hyphen-minus or minus is deliberate and conscious, making it an alternate spelling rather than an alternate glyph. Well, yes. If 00F7 can be used to stand in as a marked 2011, as claimed in the Unicode namelist annotation then that use is clearly NOT as a variant of 2052, because 2011 does not have any connotations of negation. It is an argument for seeing 00F7 as (also) a hyphen-minus variant, no? That means the semantic relations between 00F7 and 2052 only partially overlap, which is yet another indication that thinking of one as a font-style variant of the other is not particularly helpful - even if the ultimate origin may have derived from the same sign. At this stage of the game, they are properly disunified, just as i and j or u and v. I am not really arguing for their unification - which anyhow is impossible, if I have understood the stability rules of Unicode. (Whereas an *additional* name is not ruled out, if I got it right.) I am ”only” arguing that Unicode takes information that clearly links the two together. As it is today, no one seems to realize how commercial minus relates to “division sign minus”. [1] http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2014-January/13.html [2] attachment of the file “screenshot-of-minuses.png attachment: screenshot-of-minuses.png Leif Halvard Silli Asmus Freytag, Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:17:46 -0800: I find it unhelpful to consider 2052 as the italic variant of 00F7, and further find the evidence for that not all that germane. Both are variants of the - sign, and so ipso facto are variants of each other. However, to identify something as italic to me would require that one form is used in the
Re: Aw: Commercial minus as italic variant of division sign in German and Scandinavian context
Jörg Knappen, Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:26:10 +0100 (CET):
The most important word in the comment on 00F7 ÷ DIVISION SIGN is
occasionally.
In fact, the occasions are such rare that you can live a whole life
in germany without encountering one of them.
On the other hand, 00F7 ÷ DIVISION SIGN is used _frequently_ in
german schoolbooks to denote ...
division (books aimed at professionals doing math prefer : (COLON) or
/ (SLASH) for this purpose, but schoolbooks don't).
This sounds like Norway ...
2052 ⁒ commercial minus sign _always_ means subtraction and it has
this shape (or the alternate shape ./.)
in all contexts, roman or italic. It is not the italic version of
some other symbol.
So, I can only once more emphasize that when I said ”italics” I meant
it the way Unicode already have many characters (primarily mathematical
ones) which are distinguished, in name, only by a reference to the
style of the letter. Hope this helps.
As for the clarity of 2052 ⁒ commercial minus sign, no, you are wrong.
While it is clear to you, in Germany, perhaps, at least in some
Scandinavian school contexts, it has a different meaning, namely as a
“well done” sign, from the teacher.
As for the Norwegian context, I guess we can say that the use of ÷
DIVISION SIGN as minus sing is more on the down than on the up. But it
has its contexts (and just last week, I received an ad for glasses were
it was used), and no one thinks about it. It is not an issue. When we
get the taxation form on paper or in PDF form, the division minus is
there, and everyone understands it correctly. (Knock on woods - *some*
probably stumbles.) They don’t every realize what they see - it is
knowledge that is unaccounted for. (For instance, until I took this up,
Wikipedia made no mention of it. Hah! Even Unicode 6.3 talks about the
”commercial minus sign” in _Scandinavian_ taxation forms, without (is
my claim) understanding that it talks about DIVISION SIGN. See my reply
to Asmus.)
So what I don’t want is that the ”untraditional” uses of ÷ DIVISION
SIGN are left in the dark as some strange traditions without any roots.
Also, I don't want the commercial minus to live a life as if it is such
a unique thing. Let us document things properly.
Leif Halvard Silli
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2014 um 04:43 Uhr
Von: Leif Halvard Silli xn--mlform-iua@målform.no
An: unicode@unicode.org
Betreff: Commercial minus as italic variant of division sign in
German and Scandinavian context
Thanks to our discussion in July 2012,[1] the Unicode code charts now
says, about 00F7 ÷ DIVISION SIGN, this:
“• occasionally used as an alternate, more visually
distinct version of 2212 − {MINUS SIGN} or 2011 ‑
{NON-BREAKING HYPHEN} in some contexts
[… snip …]
→ 2052 ⁒ commercial minus sign”
However, I think it can also be added somewhere that commercial minus
is just the italic variant of ”division minus”. I’ll hereby argue for
this based on an old German book on ”commercial arithmetics” I have
come accross, plus what the the July 2012 discussion and what Unicode
already says about the commercial sign:
FIRST: IDENTICAL CONTEXTS.
German language is an important locale for the Commercial Minus. In
German, the Commercial minus is both referred to as ”kaufmännische
Minus(zeichen)” and as buchhalterische Minus (”Commercial Minus
Character” and ”Bookkeeper Minus”). And, speaking of ”division minus”
in the context I know best, Norway, we find it in advertising
(commercial context) and in book keeping documentation and taxation
forms. Simply put, what the Unicode 6.2 ”General Punctuation” section
says about Commercial Minus, can also be said about DIVISION SIGN used
as minus: «U+2052 % commercial minus sign is used in commercial or tax
related forms or publications in several European countries, including
Germany and Scandinavia.» So, basically and for the most part, the
commercial minus and the ”division sign minus” occur in the very same
contexts, with very much the same meaning. This is a strong hint that
they are the same character.
SECOND: GERMAN USE OF DIVISION SIGN FOR MINUS IN COMMERCIAL CONTEXT.
Is there any proof that German used both an italics variant and a
non-italics variant of the “division minus”? Seemingly yes. The book
“Kaufmännische Arithmetik” (“Commercial arithmetics”) from 1825 by
Johann Philipp Schellenberg. By reading section 118 «Anhang zur
Addition und Subtraction der Brüche» [”Appendix about the addition and
subtraction of fractions”]) at page 213 and onwards,[2] we can conclude
that he describes as “commercial” use of the ÷ ”division minus”, where
the ÷ signifies a _negative remainder_ of a division (while the plus
sign is used to signify a positive remainder). Or to quote, from page
214: «so wird das Fehlende durch das [Zei]chen ÷ (minus) bemerkt, und
bei Berechn[nung der Preis der Waare abgezogen» [”then the lacking
remainder is marked with the ÷ (minus) and
Re: Commercial minus as italic variant of division sign in German and Scandinavian context
On 1/16/2014 5:34 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: Asmus, I am not certain that commercial minus isn’t sometimes used as italics for the ”division sign minus”. For instance, when looking at my message in Firefox [1], the commercial minus looks like a “handwritten” variant of the division sign. I think it would be entirely possible to use a that way looking commercial minus in a Norwegian taxation formulary, for instance. (I attach a screenshot of it.) I suspect that it is a monospace Courier font. The screen shot indeed shows a glyph for 2052 that superficially looks like a *reverse* (!) oblique variant of the glyph for 00F7. I say superficially because the other distinction is the use of heavier dots. However, the fact that the slant is reverse, rather than forward, is contrary to the way oblique or italic fonts usually work. So, again, I find your suggestion of italic variant not helpful. Also, I wonder about the claim in the General Punctuation section that commercial minus is used in taxation forms in Scandinavia and Germany. I would dearly like to see the evidence for that claim. I must say that I suspect that the use of the division sign in Norwegian taxation forms for this purpose have been counted in a s evidence for that claim - could it be that our ”straight commercial minus” was counted as, well, a commercial minus? Could it be that the wish to see oneself - or us - in the “German tradition”, made one draw the wrong conclusion about which character we use? I would not be surprised if the actual situation is a bit more detailed than expressed in Unicode's namelist annotations (or even the descriptions in the chapter texts). However, I can't assist you in tracking those down as I have access to no taxation forms that use any of these characters. :) Anyway, when I spoke if 2052 as an italic version of 00F7, I meant in the, kind of, “mathematical” sense: Unicode for instance contains both MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC CAPITAL A, and MATHEMATICAL BOLD CAPITAL A, and even if they are (I believe) used for different mathematical purposes, everyone sees and knows that they are variants of one and the same letter - the capital A. And also, in some contexts, one might be able to use a normal capital A instead of the mathematical ones. This is getting even less helpful. The mathematical alphabets exist, because in mathematics, you cannot substitute one shape for another without destroying the semantics (and there are general conventions about what shape to use where). The latter is similar to the uses of 00F7 and 2052 both. There are conventions where each of them is appropriate and these conventions depend on rathere selected user communities (school books, tax forms, accounting, math), just like the use of certain mathematical alphabet styles in physics may not be shared in all mathematical disciplines. Where the case for 00F7 and 2052 differs from the mathematical alphabets is that in the latter case the shape variants are (to a very large extent) accurately described by the typographical moniker. A bold is a bold. The only exception that I can think of is in the realm of script, where some authors prefer a slightly different style that isn't tied to 18th century copperplate. The same knowledge is not present about 00F7 and 2052. The best would have been if the two characters shared a similar name. For instance, if 00F7 got an additional, synonymous name, like STRAIGHT COMMERCIAL MINUS, or perhaps, better, COMMERCIAL HYPHEN-MINUS. Then the relationship would be clear - or at least clearer. Like MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC CAPITAL A, and MATHEMATICAL BOLD CAPITAL A show, two characters do not need to be 100% synonymous just because their names only differs in a stylistic way, so to speak. Well, 00F7 is *most often* used as a division sign. Check calculator keys. When reading Unicode, one is only left to guess about the relationship between 00F7 and 2052. For instance, 2052 is described in the general punctuation - and distinguished there from the ”normal” minus and hyphen-minus, whereas 0057 is not described there. A sentence, there, that said that, in some countries, it is actually the 00F7 and not the 2052, that is used, would be very helpful and enlightenting. Likewise, there is no description of 00F7 amongst the dashes/hyphens. Suggest better text for the book chapter that details the precise places that have been established as using 00F7 in the capacity of minus sign. That would be more helpful than trying to somehow treat 00F7 and 2052 as glyphic variants of each other. They are separate characters, with distinct usage conventions that simply happen to employ both a line and two dots. (The fallback of ./. for 2052 is interesting in this context). You wrote: Further, while italic (as well as oblique fonts) tend to slant the letter forms, there's not a universal, established practice of turning horizontal dashes into slashes to mark the alternation between
Re: Commercial minus as italic variant of division sign in German and Scandinavian context
Asmus Freytag, Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:24:45 -0800: On 1/16/2014 5:34 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: when looking at my message in Firefox [1], the commercial minus looks like a “handwritten” variant of the division sign. the fact that the slant is reverse, rather than forward, is contrary to the way oblique or italic fonts usually work. So, again, I find your suggestion of italic variant not helpful. Got it. ;-) Will stop using italic about it! Meanwhile, I think there *is* something to say about the slant, the slant does seem to be primarily linked to *style*. Just now, at colourbox.de, I found some vector icons which are simply labelled as minus icons, and which both of them are shaped like the DIVISION SIGN, and which occurs side by side with a plus sign. The labels for the icons are simply “Icon - minus - schwarz weiß“ and ”Icon - minus - hellblau”. See: http://www.colourbox.de/vektor/icon-seite-gefaltet-hellgrun-vektor-5753796 You find it in Google if you search for ”kaufmännische Minuszeichen”. Take that as a hint. Also, I wonder about the claim in the General Punctuation section that commercial minus is used in taxation forms in Scandinavia and Germany. […] I would not be surprised if the actual situation is a bit more detailed than expressed in Unicode's namelist annotations (or even the descriptions in the chapter texts). However, I can't assist you in tracking those down as I have access to no taxation forms that use any of these characters. :) :-) Anyway, when I spoke if 2052 as an italic version of 00F7, I meant in the, kind of, “mathematical” sense: […] Where the case for 00F7 and 2052 differs from the mathematical alphabets is that in the latter case the shape variants are (to a very large extent) accurately described by the typographical moniker. A bold is a bold. The only exception that I can think of is in the realm of script, where some authors prefer a slightly different style that isn't tied to 18th century copperplate. And by script you mean handwriting style. That makes sense. That is how I perceive the German, commercial minus. Suggest better text for the book chapter that details the precise places that have been established as using 00F7 in the capacity of minus sign. That would be more helpful than trying to somehow treat 00F7 and 2052 as glyphic variants of each other. They are separate characters, with distinct usage conventions that simply happen to employ both a line and two dots. (The fallback of ./. for 2052 is interesting in this context). Ok. Will try. Though I think better text would tie them, rather than separate them. But I think you are artificially separating them. I was focused only at the minority use of 00F7 as a minus sign, in which case it and 2052 AND 002D and 2012 all function as variants of each other (but not as glyphic variants --- they are spelling variants). Good point. It is like the V and U - they have a common history. It is an argument for seeing 00F7 as (also) a hyphen-minus variant, no? Once you get into the dashes, there's tons of variant usage. What's documented in Unicode tends to be from predominantly English-language style manuals, but if you extend this to all publications in all (Western) languages including recent historic times, I'm sure you'd find surprising variations. Does the Unicode spec say this - that is is predominantly English language based? As it is today, no one seems to realize how commercial minus relates to “division sign minus”. additional names are ruled out - except to fix something that's badly broken. Neither of these characters has names that are misleading, mistyped or both. There are many characters with deep relations that many users do no know about. And, in this case, there seem to be some issues with the precise relation you are trying to implement. I saw it as if in a mist. Now it becomes clearer and clearer to me. :-) This fun page indicates that the ./. “fallback” has a 35 year history. http://www.wertpapier-forum.de/topic/14587-kennzahlenanalyse/page__st__20 Which could fit well together with a theory that the script variant grew in popularity when the ”international” ÷ division sign of computers entered German math. That ÷ as minus ”went back” due to computers and calculators, seems to be the general trend. -- leif halvard silli ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
