Jonathan Rosenne wrote:
>It is just a mark to draw your attention that something requires special
>attention. It is used as such a number of times in the Bible. Similar to
>underlining in English.
>
>The use for indicating thousands, as far as I know, is not Biblical.
>
Is the dot used for hundreds or thousands? I thought the double dot
(coded as ?) was used sometimes for thousands.
At least this is what Georges Ifrah (North African Jew) writes about
calendars that are on sales in kosher shops in Paris in his Histoire
universelle des chiffres (vol I, p. 526).
He transcribes 5739 as
<-------------------------------
TET '' LAMED SHIN TAV HE" ( ¨ )
He does add this is not strictly observed since the letter-numerals
written from right to left must be in decreasing number and one can drop
this mark when there is no ambiguity (which seems to me as being quite
often).
Incidentally, Ifrah gives a number of Middle Ages transcriptions were
single dots or accents are alternativley used on all numeral letters.
Could this mean that a numeral dot which could be rendered as an accent
or an upper dot is a possibility?
>I don't buy the semantic argument. If it were valid, we would require
>the Roman numbers as separate characters, because their semantics is
>different.
>
But isn't this the case : U+2160..U+2183 ?
Patrick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jan 22 2002 - 19:45:46 EST