Eng again (was: Name mangling)
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, March 10, 2005, 19:29|
On Thursday, March 10, 2005, at 05:40 , Muke Tever wrote:
> Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...> wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>> Joe suggested eng, but, AFAIK, it doesn't have an uppercase form, and
>>> it's riskier in electronic form than is ñ.
>> It is riskier, but it also has an uppercase form!
> It actually has _two_ uppercase forms: one that looks like a large
> eng, and one that looks like a capital N with the same hook as eng.
Yes, you're right! - I was mistaken in saying that the latter was _the_
uppercase eng. I discover that in fact in the 'African Alphabet' by the
International Institute of Languages & cultures in London in 1930, the
former version of the uppercase eng was used.
On Wednesday, March 9, 2005, at 08:03 , Steg Belsky wrote:
I have seen - both uppercase forms appear on that page. But neither of
them look like the weird h-like symbol most of the fonts on my Mac produce!
It strikes me that it would have been better if unicode had codes
separately for the two different versions. but i still do not see why most
fonts cannot be designed to produce either one or the other shape properly.
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]