From: Andrew West (andrewcwest@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 06 2010 - 06:29:10 CDT
On 6 August 2010 11:03, Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14@telia.com> wrote:
>
> Den 2010-08-06 11.02, skrev "Andrew West" <andrewcwest@gmail.com>:
>> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 06 2010 - 06:32:50 CDT