John Hudson recently said:
At 12:29 PM 1/16/2003, Timothy Partridge wrote:
Charles Trice Martin wrote The Record Interpreter which lists words in
record type and their expansion. The 2nd Edition (1910) has been reprinted
many times. The 1999 reprint is a facsimile of the 1910 edition, rather
John Jenkins said:
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 01:29 PM, Timothy Partridge wrote:
Yes, especially early printing of Latin documents. See for example
Gutenberg's bibles.
Well, for that matter, even current editions of Spenser's _Faerie
Queene_ will use the occasional õ for on,
Kenneth Whistler had written:
Handwritten forms and arbitrary manuscript abbreviations
should not be encoded as characters. The text should just
be represented as m + m. Then, if you wish to *render*
such text in a font which mimics this style of handwriting
and uses such abbreviations, then you
At 01:06 AM 1/17/2003, Otto Stolz wrote:
John Hudson wrote:
Ken's suggestion works fine, but only on discreetly selected runs of
text. In other words, it would be up to the user *not* to apply the glyph
substitution layout feature in the circumstances Otto describes.
[...] Obviously this is
Me, Myself I:
m with a macron above. I can't find any such character in Unicode,
It seems as if I'm not the first one to wonder:
http://www.eki.ee/letter/chardata.cgi?ucode=e000-f8ff
although there's the use in bi [Bislama] and yo [Yoruba] listed instead.
Never heard of /those/ languages.
Christoph Päper asked:
I recently learned in news:de.etc.sprache.deutsch that there has been a
tradition (in handwritten text more than in print) of writing mm as only
one m with a macron above. I can't find any such character in Unicode,
just U+1E3F and U+1E41.
You could of course build
Christoph Päper had asked:
there has been a
tradition (in handwritten text more than in print) of writing mm as only
one m with a macron above. I can't find any such character in Unicode,
You could of course build something similar with m+U+0305 to resemble the
look, but that won't become mm
the spelling i. e. would [not] distort the content of that is
?
i. e. is an latin abbreviation for in exemplum meaning for example
not that is. (or am I not even average at english?!?)
--
Dominikus Scherkl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dominikus Scherkl scripsit:
i. e. is an latin abbreviation for in exemplum meaning for example
not that is. (or am I not even average at english?!?)
It is a Latin abbreviation, but it stands for id est, and therefore
corresponds to German d. h. The abbreviation for for example
(German z. B.)
The convention of using a horizontal line to mark an abbreviation, often
the omission of m or n, goes back to the middle ages (if not earlier)
and was often used in early printed books; apparently it has lived on in
some handwriting, to judge from your post.
It was used in English too, see:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 01:35 PM, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Handwritten forms and arbitrary manuscript abbreviations
should not be encoded as characters. The text should just
be represented as m + m. Then, if you wish to *render*
such text in a font which mimics this style of
I've got a lot less to write since everybody else got there first.
Christoph Päper christoph dot paeper at tu dash clausthal dot de
wrote:
I recently learned in news:de.etc.sprache.deutsch that there has
been a tradition (in handwritten text more than in print) of writing
mm as only one m
Dominikus Scherkl wrote:
i. e. is an latin abbreviation for in exemplum meaning for example
not that is.
i. e. = id est = that is
e. g. = exempli gratia = for example
Cassel's English-German Dictionary, ISBN 0-02-522920-6, also says so.
Best wishes,
Otto Stolz
Cristoph Päper recently said:
Kenneth Whistler:
Christoph Päper asked:
writing mm as only one m with a macron above.
Handwritten forms and arbitrary manuscript abbreviations
should not be encoded as characters.
Although I've got no proof for it, I was told that it has also been
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 01:29 PM, Timothy Partridge wrote:
Yes, especially early printing of Latin documents. See for example
Gutenberg's bibles.
Well, for that matter, even current editions of Spenser's _Faerie
Queene_ will use the occasional õ for on, and so on.
==
John
At 01:59 AM 1/16/2003, Otto Stolz wrote:
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Handwritten forms and arbitrary manuscript abbreviations
should not be encoded as characters. The text should just
be represented as m + m. Then, if you wish to *render*
such text in a font which mimics this style of handwriting
At 12:29 PM 1/16/2003, Timothy Partridge wrote:
Charles Trice Martin wrote The Record Interpreter which lists words in
record type and their expansion. The 2nd Edition (1910) has been reprinted
many times. The 1999 reprint is a facsimile of the 1910 edition, rather than
being re-typeset.
The
Christoph,
The convention of using a horizontal line to mark an abbreviation, often
the omission of m or n, goes back to the middle ages (if not earlier)
and was often used in early printed books; apparently it has lived on in
some handwriting, to judge from your post. There is no such m-macron
David J. Perry wrote:
The convention of using a horizontal line to mark an abbreviation, often
the omission of m or n, goes back to the middle ages (if not earlier)
and was often used in early printed books; apparently it has lived on in
some handwriting, to judge from your post. ...
I can
19 matches
Mail list logo
