From: philip chastney (philip_chastney@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Jul 05 2008 - 03:49:03 CDT
--- On Sat, 5/7/08, philip chastney <philip_chastney@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: philip chastney <philip_chastney@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: how to add all latin (and greek) subscripts
To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Date: Saturday, 5 July, 2008, 1:07 AM
--- On Fri, 4/7/08, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:
From: Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org>
Subject: Re: how to add all latin (and greek) subscripts
To: verdy_p@wanadoo.fr
Cc: philip_chastney@yahoo.com, "'Ondrej Certik'" <ondrej@certik.cz>, unicode@unicode.org
Date: Friday, 4 July, 2008, 5:22 PM
[...] Properly speaking, this isn't even a U+05D0 HEBREW
LETTER ALEF, it's really a U+2135 ALEF SYMBOL (even annotated as
"first
transfinite cardinal", which is what we're dealing with here).
an interesting observation
I
have often wondered why the natural exponent (e = 2.718..) gets its own
symbol, pi does not, and the imaginary symbol can be be represented in
a number of ways
U+2126 (Ohm), U+212A (Kelvin) and U+2128
(Angstrom) are fully equivalenced, yet U+2135..U+2138 (alef, bet,
gimel, dalet) are only considered to be approximately equal to their
natural language forbears
is there, perhaps, a pre-existing standard with these four Hebrew letters encoded?
I
cannot recall a single text which didn't use an aleph symbol that had
been borrowed from a brush script or calligraphic-style Hebrew font,
and which consequently looked out of kilter with the rest of the
notation
what, then, is the distinction between aleph as a "symbol" and the Hebrew letter?
addendum
---------------
and why does this distinction hold for the first transfinite cardinal, but not for the first transfinite ordinal?
/phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 05 2008 - 03:52:21 CDT