From: Raymond Mercier (rm459@cam.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 10:16:20 CST
"Christopher Fynn" <cfynn@gmx.net> writes
> So could this other Kai abbreviation be considered as an alternate glyph
> form of U+03D7?
Probably not, even though it is best not to multiply needlessly the various
glyphs. As you see from the first line here the tachygraphical form does not
really derive from kappa+ ioto subscript, but from another line of
development that started with a sort of zigzag, and ended up with a form
like the one in Morgan's text.
At most I would argue for the encoding of those forms that were used by the
earliest printers, but ignoring the huge number of others that are found in
the long manuscript tradition. Unicode is meant for the printed text, is it
not ?
This image is from E.M. Thomson's A handbook of Greek and Latin
Palaeography.
Raymond Mercier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 18 2005 - 10:18:04 CST
