From: Raymond Mercier (raymondM@compuserve.com)
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 03:11:03 CST
Richard,
>>Now, unless Zero shares the same glyphic range as Artabe, I’m not sure that they can be unified.<<
My last wish is to unify artabe and zero, but the artabe symbol listed in N2676 really is just the same as the zero used in papyri of the age.
>>If you look at e.g. ‘Siglae’ in RE 2.2 (1923) 2279-2315 you’ll see that Bilabel lists 16 glyph variants for the Artabe. The most common variants are the ones with a horizinal line (like a dash) with an arrangement of between one and three dots around it, sometimes the dots are solid and sometimes they are hollow circles.<<
I will have a look at RE, since I have so far only seen the examples in Kenyon's photos, but it was already clear to me that the entry in N2676 will not do, if only because it fails to represent the confused variety of forms used in the papyri.
The question of the zero is separate, and perhaps easier. Anyway I will not try to summarise here my as yet incomplete collection.
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Peevers
To: unicode@unicode.org
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: New contribution N2676
Raymond,
Apropos 10186 G GREEK ARTABE SIGN
The identity of one glyph variant of ‘zero’ and one of ‘artabe’ raises an interesting problem.
For the ‘Zero’ there are, it seems to me, two main characters used for this: one is identical to the letter omicron and the other is a circle (more or less like an omicron) with a more or less elaborate bar over it. It’s only the second that we’d be looking to propose.
It seems to me that here we need two characters: 1) Artabe (horizontal line surrounded by 1-3 dots/hollow circles) and 2) Zero (hollow circle with more or less elaborate line above.
Richard
Richard Peevers
Research Associate
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae
3450 Berkeley Place
Irvine CA 92697-5550
www.tlg.uci.edu
www.digressus.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:25 CST