Michael wrote: > > which happens to be the one preferred for future Turkish banknotes and > > coins, you open up Pandora's box by forcing a need for distinction, where > > there is — as per status-quo — none. You have been warned :-) > > There is nothing new here. > > 2003-02-24 ₲ ₳ http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2579.pdf > 2003-10-01 ؋ http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2640.pdf > 2004-04-23 ₴ ₵ http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2743.pdf > 2008-03-06 ₷ http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n3390.pdf > 2008-03-06 ₸ http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n3392.pdf > 2010-02-10 ֏ ftp://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n3771.pdf (KP) > 2010-07-19 ₹ http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n3862.pdf > 2012-04-17 ₺ http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4258.pdf
Of course there is. These were signs unidentifyable with existing currency symbols. The new rupee sign is, of course, note identical with the [Rp] sign, which is quite distinct, only the semantics being identical. (like "€" being semantically identical to the four-codepoint string "Euro"). Also, all of these (and also the Euro) have a clear description in terms of constituent letters. $: an S with a single or a double vertikal stroke ¢: a c with a vertical or slanted stroke £: a fancy L with a horizontal stroke ₤: a fancy L with two horizontal strokes ₪: a SHIN and a HET ligated (< sheqel ḥadash 'new shekel') €: a C with double strokes (< E) ₲: a G with a vertical stroke ₳: an A with a double crossbar ₴: A DZELO with a double crossbar (< italic minuscle GHE) ₵: A C with a vertical stroke ₷: an S with an m ligated ₸: a T with a second top bar ֏: an Armenian CAPITAL DA with a double crossbar (instead of the simple right "twig") ₹: a stemless R crossed (< RA crossed) Quite tellingly in the case of the EURO it is *not* the very geometric "official" glyph of the Euro that is encoded, it is not even chosen for the representative glyph. So what is the proposed TURKISH LIRA SIGN, if not a "fancy L with two horizontal strokes"? Szabolcs
