Hi Gerrit - being NO logician myself - modern logic seems to be a rather new science related to 19323/33 continental European printing.
1) At what time did the "backslash" made its appearance then? Wikipedia has this: "Bob Bemer introduced the "\" character into ASCII[3] on September 18, 1961,[4] as the result of character frequency studies. In particular the \ was introduced so that the ALGOL boolean operators ∧ (AND) and ∨ (OR) could be composed in ASCII as "/\" and "\/" respectively.[4][5] Both these operators were included in early versions of the C programming language supplied with Unix V6, Unix V7 and more currently BSD 2.11." 2) What about U+2129 TURNED GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA then? To me it looks like an erratic character encoded for backward compatibility only - LETTERLIKE SYMBOLS is not the block I would/did look for logical symbols. Why is U+2129 encoded this way - what's it's history? Is it reaching back to the 1930s - what was it used for and in what context? The glyph on the book title could be meant to symbolize U+2129 only - the printer just had to help himself with what his character set was like… Any idea? HE # # # On Jan 11, 2013, at 11:12 PM, Gerrit Ansmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:51:04 +0100, Elbrecht <[email protected]> wrote: > >> that's just my first guess - no blackslash available the printer replaced >> with what was available in his set… > > I would be really surprised, if this was the glyph closest to a backslash > available. I am no expert on classical typesetting, but given the size of > what’s printed here, I would guess, it should be easy to use some makeshift > construction, to arrange an ‹I›, ‹–›, ‹—› or a decorative element diagonally. > And even if not: Why was there a letter in the typesetter’s set, that nobody > here can identify? > > Also, considering once more that this is a cover: Does this have to be a > premanufactured movable letter? And does this have to be the result of > classical moveable type at all? > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:51:04 +0100, Elbrecht <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But NEGATION would do the job in a Koan manner! > > As already said, I suspect that the weird character itself is the koan, and > not anything it might stand for. # # # 名 非 〇 我 我 我 法 法 法 〇 是 即
