Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT THREE?

-----Original Message-----
From: John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:05:36 -0800
To: Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?


> At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson wrote:
> 
> >It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand is a 
> >ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och. That both 
> >mean "and" is NOT a reason for unifying different signs.
> 
> The fact that & is accepted by Swedish readers as a substitute for the 
> 'och' sign, and that the latter seems to be limited to manuscript, suggests 
> a glyph variant. I do not consider the fact that both mean 'and' to be a 
> reason for unifying different signs. I ponder whether two different signs 
> that are apparently used *interchangeably* might be unified?
> 
> John Hudson
> 
> Tiro Typeworks                www.tiro.com
> Vancouver, BC         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> ... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit,
> das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich
> nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte.
> 
> ... every image of the past that is not recognized by the
> present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear
> irretrievably.
>                                                Walter Benjamin
> 
> 
> 

-- 

_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.ranmamail.com

Powered by Outblaze

Reply via email to