On 1/16/2014 5:34 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus,
I am not certain that commercial minus isn’t sometimes used as italics
for the ”division sign minus”. For instance, when looking at my message
in Firefox [1], the commercial minus looks like a “handwritten” variant
of the division sign. I think it would be entirely possible to use a
that way looking commercial minus in a Norwegian taxation formulary,
for instance. (I attach a screenshot of it.) I suspect that it is a
monospace Courier font.
The screen shot indeed shows a glyph for 2052 that superficially looks
like a
*reverse* (!) oblique variant of the glyph for 00F7. I say
"superficially" because
the other distinction is the use of heavier dots.
However, the fact that the "slant" is reverse, rather than forward, is
contrary to
the way oblique or italic fonts usually work.
So, again, I find your suggestion of "italic variant" not helpful.
Also, I wonder about the claim in the General Punctuation section that
commercial minus is used in taxation forms in Scandinavia and Germany.
I would dearly like to see the evidence for that claim. I must say that
I suspect that the use of the division sign in Norwegian taxation forms
for this purpose have been counted in a s evidence for that claim -
could it be that our ”straight commercial minus” was counted as, well,
a commercial minus? Could it be that the wish to see oneself - or us -
in the “German tradition”, made one draw the wrong conclusion about
which character we use?
I would not be surprised if the actual situation is a bit more detailed
than expressed
in Unicode's namelist annotations (or even the descriptions in the
chapter texts).
However, I can't assist you in tracking those down as I have access to
no taxation
forms that use any of these characters. :)
Anyway, when I spoke if 2052 as an italic version of 00F7, I meant in
the, kind of, “mathematical” sense: Unicode for instance contains both
MATHEMATICAL BOLD ITALIC CAPITAL A, and MATHEMATICAL BOLD CAPITAL A,
and even if they are (I believe) used for different mathematical
purposes, everyone sees and knows that they are variants of one and the
same letter - the capital A. And also, in some contexts, one might be
able to use a normal capital A instead of the mathematical ones.
This is getting even less helpful.
The mathematical alphabets exist, because in mathematics, you cannot
substitute
one shape for another without destroying the semantics (and there are
general
conventions about what shape to use where).
The latter is similar to the uses of 00F7 and 2052 both. There are
conventions
where each of them is appropriate and these conventions depend on rathere
selected user communities (school books, tax forms, accounting, math), just
like the use of certain mathematical alphabet styles in physics may not be
shared in all mathematical disciplines.
Where the case for 00F7 and 2052 differs from the mathematical alphabets is
that in the latter case the shape variants are (to a very large extent)
accurately
described by the typographical moniker. A bold is a bold.
The only exception that I can think of is in the realm of "script",
where some
authors prefer a slightly different style that isn't tied to 18th
century copperplate.
The same knowledge is not present about 00F7 and 2052. The best would
have been if the two characters shared a similar name. For instance, if
00F7 got an additional, synonymous name, like STRAIGHT COMMERCIAL
MINUS, or perhaps, better, COMMERCIAL HYPHEN-MINUS. Then the
relationship would be clear - or at least clearer. Like MATHEMATICAL
BOLD ITALIC CAPITAL A, and MATHEMATICAL BOLD CAPITAL A show, two
characters do not need to be 100% synonymous just because their names
only differs in a stylistic way, so to speak.
Well, 00F7 is *most often* used as a division sign. Check calculator keys.
When reading Unicode, one is only left to guess about the relationship
between 00F7 and 2052. For instance, 2052 is described in the general
punctuation - and distinguished there from the ”normal” minus and
hyphen-minus, whereas 0057 is not described there. A sentence, there,
that said that, in some countries, it is actually the 00F7 and not the
2052, that is used, would be very helpful and enlightenting. Likewise,
there is no description of 00F7 amongst the dashes/hyphens.
Suggest better text for the book chapter that details the precise places
that have
been established as using 00F7 in the capacity of "minus sign". That
would be
more helpful than trying to somehow treat 00F7 and 2052 as glyphic
variants of each
other. They are separate characters, with distinct usage conventions
that simply happen
to employ both a line and two dots. (The fallback of ./. for 2052 is
interesting in this context).
You wrote:
Further, while italic (as well as oblique fonts) tend to slant the letter
forms, there's not a universal, established practice of turning horizontal
dashes into slashes to mark the alternation between roman and
italic fonts. From that perspective, considering one the "italic"
variant of the other also appears to be a non-starter.
Right. And I can only underline once more that I meant ”italic” as part
of the name, see above.
Actually, as I wrote at the top, you'd need "reverse italic" and in
general, trying to establish
this relation is a red herring. It does not improve the user experience.
You:
However, it seems to be possible to establish that these two
characters are indeed rather close variants: […]
Indeed.
Less close than it appears, because when I wrote this I did not include
the notion of the most common use of 00F7, which is indeed for DIVISION.
I was focused only at the minority use of 00F7 as a minus sign, in which
case
it and 2052 AND 002D and 2012 all function as variants of each other (but
not as glyphic variants --- they are spelling variants).
The choice of variant, though, is driven by context and tradition
for a given type of document, not by choice of font style.
And, the choice of using 2052 instead of hyphen-minus or minus
is deliberate and conscious, making it an alternate spelling rather
than an alternate "glyph".
Well, yes.
Because it's spelling, the "italic" is a red herring.
If 00F7 can be used to stand in as a marked 2011, as claimed in
the Unicode namelist annotation then that use is clearly NOT
as a variant of 2052, because 2011 does not have
any connotations of negation.
It is an argument for seeing 00F7 as (also) a hyphen-minus variant, no?
Once you get into the dashes, there's tons of variant usage. What's
documented in Unicode tends to be from predominantly English-language
style manuals, but if you extend this to all publications in all
(Western) languages including recent historic times, I'm sure you'd find
surprising variations.
For quotation marks we ran this to earth and the story is truly complex.
That means the semantic
relations between 00F7 and 2052 only partially overlap, which
is yet another indication that thinking of one as a font-style
variant of the other is not particularly helpful - even if the
ultimate origin may have derived from the same sign.
At this stage of the game, they are properly disunified,
just as i and j or u and v.
I am not really arguing for their unification - which anyhow is
impossible, if I have understood the stability rules of Unicode.
(Whereas an *additional* name is not ruled out, if I got it right.) I
am ”only” arguing that Unicode takes information that clearly links the
two together. As it is today, no one seems to realize how commercial
minus relates to “division sign minus”.
"additional" names are ruled out - except to fix something that's badly
broken.
Neither of these characters has names that are misleading, mistyped or both.
There are many characters with deep relations that many users do no know
about. And, in this case, there seem to be some issues with the precise
relation you are trying to implement.
A./
[1] http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2014-January/000013.html
[2] attachment of the file “screenshot-of-minuses.png"
Leif Halvard Silli
Asmus Freytag, Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:17:46 -0800:
I find it unhelpful to consider 2052 as the italic variant of 00F7, and
further find the "evidence" for that not all that germane.
Both are variants of the "-" sign, and so ipso facto are variants of
each other.
However, to identify something as "italic" to me would require that
one form is used in the context of italic fonts, while the other is not.
I cannot see anything supporting that interpretation in the "evidence"
adduced below.
On the contrary, you would expect both forms available in sans-serif
and typewriter fonts (those being perhaps the most common for
accounting), and perhaps also roman.
Further, while italic (as well as oblique fonts) tend to slant the letter
forms, there's not a universal, established practice of turning horizontal
dashes into slashes to mark the alternation between roman and
italic fonts. From that perspective, considering one the "italic"
variant of the other also appears to be a non-starter.
However, it seems to be possible to establish that these two
characters are indeed rather close variants: both are used
to visually emphasize the minus sign by means of decorating
it with a pair of dots. And both are employed in situations that
are have a large semantic overlap. (Not surprisingly, because their
meaning is based on the minus sign).
The choice of variant, though, is driven by context and tradition
for a given type of document, not by choice of font style.
And, the choice of using 2052 instead of hyphen-minus or minus
is deliberate and conscious, making it an alternate spelling rather
than an alternate "glyph".
If 00F7 can be used to stand in as a marked 2011, as claimed in
the Unicode namelist annotation then that use is clearly NOT
as a variant of 2052, because 2011 does not have
any connotations of negation. That means the semantic
relations between 00F7 and 2052 only partially overlap, which
is yet another indication that thinking of one as a font-style
variant of the other is not particularly helpful - even if the
ultimate origin may have derived from the same sign.
At this stage of the game, they are properly disunified,
just as i and j or u and v.
A./
On 1/15/2014 7:43 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Thanks to our discussion in July 2012,[1] the Unicode code charts now
says, about 00F7 ÷ DIVISION SIGN, this:
“• occasionally used as an alternate, more visually
distinct version of 2212 − {MINUS SIGN} or 2011 ‑
{NON-BREAKING HYPHEN} in some contexts
[… snip …]
→ 2052 ⁒ commercial minus sign”
However, I think it can also be added somewhere that commercial minus
is just the italic variant of ”division minus”. I’ll hereby argue for
this based on an old German book on ”commercial arithmetics” I have
come accross, plus what the the July 2012 discussion and what Unicode
already says about the commercial sign:
FIRST: IDENTICAL CONTEXTS.
German language is an important locale for the Commercial Minus. In
German, the Commercial minus is both referred to as ”kaufmännische
Minus(zeichen)” and as "buchhalterische Minus" (”Commercial Minus
Character” and ”Bookkeeper Minus”). And, speaking of ”division minus”
in the context I know best, Norway, we find it in advertising
(commercial context) and in book keeping documentation and taxation
forms. Simply put, what the Unicode 6.2 ”General Punctuation” section
says about Commercial Minus, can also be said about DIVISION SIGN used
as minus: «U+2052 % commercial minus sign is used in commercial or tax
related forms or publications in several European countries, including
Germany and Scandinavia.» So, basically and for the most part, the
commercial minus and the ”division sign minus” occur in the very same
contexts, with very much the same meaning. This is a strong hint that
they are the same character.
SECOND: GERMAN USE OF DIVISION SIGN FOR MINUS IN COMMERCIAL CONTEXT.
Is there any proof that German used both an italics variant and a
non-italics variant of the “division minus”? Seemingly yes. The book
“Kaufmännische Arithmetik” (“Commercial arithmetics”) from 1825 by
Johann Philipp Schellenberg. By reading section 118 «Anhang zur
Addition und Subtraction der Brüche» [”Appendix about the addition and
subtraction of fractions”]) at page 213 and onwards,[2] we can conclude
that he describes as “commercial” use of the ÷ ”division minus”, where
the ÷ signifies a _negative remainder_ of a division (while the plus
sign is used to signify a positive remainder). Or to quote, from page
214: «so wird das Fehlende durch das [Zei]chen ÷ (minus) bemerkt, und
bei Berechn[nung der Preis der Waare abgezogen» [”then the lacking
remainder is marked with the ÷ (minus) and withdrawn when the price of
the commodity is calculated”]. {Note that some bits of the text are
lacking, I marked my guessed in square brackets.} I did not find (yet)
that he used the italic commercial minus, however, the context is
correct. (My guess is that the italics variant has been put to more
use, in the computer age, partly to separate it from the DIVISION SIGN
or may be simply because people started to see it often in handwriting
but seldom in print. And so would not have recognized it in the form of
the non-italic division sign.)
THIRD: IDENTICAL INTERPRETATION
The word “abgezogen” in the above quote is interesting since the Code
Charts for 2052 ⁒ COMMERCIAL MINUS cites the related German word
“abzüglich”. And from the Swedish context, the charts quotes the
expression “med avdrag”. English translation might be ”to be withdrawn”
or ”with subtraction/rebate [for]”. Simply put, we here see the
commercial meaning.
WHAT ABOUT COMMERCIAL MINUS AS “CORRECT” SIGN IN SCANDINAVIAN SCHOOLS?
UNICODE 6.3 notes that in some European (e.g. Finnish, Swedish and
perhaps Norwegian) traditions, teachers use the Commercial Minus Sign
to signify that something is correct (whereas a red check mark is used
to signify error). If my theory is right, that commercial minus and
division sign minus are the same signs, how on earth is that possible?
How can a minus sign count as positive for the student?
The answer is, I think, to be found in the Code Chart’s Swedish
description ("med avdrag"/"with subtraction/rebate"). Because, I think
that the correct understanding is not that it means "correct" or "OK".
Rather, it denotes something that is counted in the customer/student’s
favor. So, you could say it it really means "slack", or "rebate". So
it really mans ”good answer“. It is a ”rebate” that the student
rightfully deserves.
FOURTH: A DEEPER MEANING
If we look at it from a very high level, then we can say that the
division minus is used to signify something that is the result of a
calculation - such as a price, an entry in bookkeeping or, indeed, a
character/mark/point/score in a (home)work evaluated by a teacher.
Whereas the ”normal” minus sign is used to when we represent negative
data. For example, in taxation, all the numbers one reports, is the
result of some calculation. Likewise, when a teach ticks of an answer
as “good answer”, then it is because the teacher has evaluated (a.k.a.
”calculated”) the answer and found it to be good and that the student
has calculated correctly/well.
CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE
The commercial minus looks like a percentage sign. And also, in
programming, e.g. JavaScript, the percentage sign is often used for the
modulo operator - which is an operator that finds the dividend of a
division.
Hence, when we take all this together, I believe we have to conclude
that the COMMERCIAL MINUS is just the italic variant of the DIVISION
SIGN.
PS: For more German documentation of this custom, it would probably be
wise to research books about bookkeeping as well as ”commercial
arithmetics”. I also have a suspicion that it would be worth
investigation contexts where modulo/division remainders operations are
found - for instance, in calendar calculations.
[1] http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2012-m07/0053.html
[2]
https://archive.org/stream/kaufmnnischeari00schegoog#page/n229/mode/2up
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
