On 6 August 2010 11:03, Kent Karlsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Den 2010-08-06 11.02, skrev "Andrew West" <[email protected]>: >> Looking at the examples shown on >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Nystrom>, it seems to me that >> 0-8 are ordinary digits, and the symbols for 9 through 15 are inverted >> or inverted+modified forms of the digits '7' through '1', so that >> there is some sort of imperfect bilateral symmetry on the clock and >> compass faces, with '0' and '8' as the axis of symmetry. Thus the '9' >> is an inverted '6' (as 16-6=10) not an ordinary '9'. So except for the >> odd glyph forms for 9, 11, 12 and 15 (would be be expected to be >> simple inversions of '7', '5', '4' and '1') it makes sense as a system >> to me. > > Nyström himself writes > (http://books.google.com/books?id=aNYGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA105&source=gbs_selected_ > pages&cad=0_1#v=onepage&q&f=false): > > "In the Tonal System it is proposed to add six new figures to the 10 > arabic"... (page 15) > and > "Although the old figures in the Tonal System bears the old value (except 9) > one by one"... (page 17)
This simply means that he is adding six new glyphs (or types), and that he considered that there was no need to cast a new type for the symbol corresponding to decimal 10 as it is looks the same as the pre-existing digit '9' -- however it is clear (e.g. from the rulers on the plate before the title page at http://books.google.com/books?id=aNYGAAAAYAAJ) that this '9' is logically an inverted '6' and therefore should not be unified with U+0039. Andrew
