dmsmith555 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 18 17:51:02 MST 2008
On Jun 18, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>> It appears there's no ISO 639-3 code for Fnhd. I'll draw up a change
>> request to see if we can get a new code. If not, we should add a
>> to the language of GerLut1545 to separate it from the real Nhd.
> Not sure whether I like this. Luther and his German is so much part of
> our culture, to separate him out as somehow unreadable, only for
> scholars, feels totally wrong. Giving the date of the translation is
> enough to keep it apart.
> The orthographical changes are actually rather few, fairly systematic
> and easy to get used to. It is not that his language is hugely
> - e.g. if he would walk into a room today and start speaking any
> German should understand him without much problem - unlike e.g.
> and modern English.
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'?
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.
More information about the sword-devel