DM Smith wrote: > > I have curiosity questions. Is it that it is actually the letter 'V' > or is it the letter 'U', but the glyph is looks like the letter 'V'?
This is a good question - and I would think there are several aspects I think the glyphs are used interchangably - a V shape is often used for an u in the begin of a word, but equally where a v is correct - while a U shape might stand where v or u would be. I und J are certainly one letter/interchangably used - indeed the greek name for the I - iota is used in German for the name of the J - Jot. Another problem is that a lot of the stuff on the net is often made to look "antique" by throwing in arbitrary font oddities - I just now realised that i actually never had seen or held in my hand a reliable copy of what Luther's Bible looked like - there are a few pictures about - but that is it. And then there is positional glyph shaping - just as we had discussed with Farsi/Arabic: I found this image file which is quite interesting: http://www.bible-researcher.com/luthercomma.jpg Look at the behaviour of the S - begin and inside words it looks like a f, but at the end it looks like an s. Similar the U changes shape whether it is inside or at the begin of a word. Not looked long enough and at enough original text to say whether there are more letters getting shaped, but I would not be surprised. Taking the glyph shaping into account I would think the version we have is wrong as it tries to imitate this by using v and u - I have not seen enough, but I think overall a straight use of U only for both letters would be more correct - but equally difficult to read for some. Peter > For example, the French cursive 1 looks like our number 7. But is the > number 1 and not the number 7. > > The reason that I ask this is that over time the glyphs for letters > change. (I was recently looking at the history of the Arabic numbers, > this morning a the changing orthography of Greek writing). > > Or could it be that there is an altogether different code point for > the 'V' than either today's letter 'V' or today's letter 'U'? > > For example, in the original KJV, the letter 's' often was a long > swoopy 'f' looking character. I would imagine that if we were to ever > encode the original KJV, that we would not use the letter 'f' but a > code point for the character that looks like it. > > (Some day, I'd like to have the original KJV as a SWORD module.) > > Or is it really a question of font? If it is merely the look or shape > of the letter, then that seems like a font issue to me. > > In Him, > DM > > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
