To be correctly spelt, it would have to be omicron + upsilon: from your description,
the appearance resembles that more closely as well.
Old Latin orthography had all sorts of lovely contractions, many of them
context-dependent: I seem to remember that u~ would mean "us" in "hominibus" but "um"
in "gentium". But if that doesn't get you close enough to a nervous breakdown, look at
the ligatures in printed *Greek* of (say) the 17th century. It's well up to Sanskrit
standards!
- Martin.
At 13:38 02/10/02 +0200, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>I am trying to identify a Greek glyph found in an ancient Latin text. I have
>not seen what it looks like, but it has been described to me as an "8" with
>the top circle opened.
>
>The sign was in a word looking like "8???" ("8r�n") and which, according to
>the text, corresponds to Latin "urina". If I understand correctly, the text
>also says that this sign is a diphthong which in Doric was substituted by a
>plain "?" (omega): "Nam olem a Graecis per <8> diphthongum scribebatur, quae
>Dorice in ? solet commutari".
>
>Therefore, I tentatively identified the word as "?????" ("�ur�n"), and the
>unknown glyph ligature as an "??" ligature ("�u": omegha + upsilon).
>
>Does anyone know whether such a ligature actually existed in old typography?
>And was it anything like an open "8"?
>
>Thanks in advance for any info.
>
>_ Marco
>
>
>
