...et ut illic liberalissimum esset spectare nihil sibi acquirentem, sic in vita longe omnibus studiis contemplationem rerum cognitionemque praestare.
...and, just as there [at the games] it was a very high-minded thing to look on [as one] acquiring nothing for oneself, so in life the contemplation of things and their investigation stood far above all pursuits.
Lavrentivs wrote:By the way, I never quite figured out how angular parentheses <> are to be used, as opposed to square ones  and rounds. Perhaps there are varying practices.
Lavrentius wrote:Greater than signs? Do you have a reference for this?
Lavrentivs wrote:Could it be that chevrons are used when leaving their content out would leave the text ungrammatical?
Lavrentivs wrote:...but it never occured to me that exclusive interval delimiters had anything to do with greater than signs...I'm not convinced that that has anything to do with inequality. Further, if you think the text critical use is derived from the mathematical, that's far from obvious, and requires some argument or source as well.
Strictly, "<>" aren't really angular brackets, or chevrons, at all. They are inequality signs, but it's no big deal, and they're used as brackets in lots of places, including for coding.
Lavrentivs wrote:I doubt that either of these should have employed a different sign were it in need of signifying an inequality.
adrianus wrote:Believe me, if the characters are available to him, a good typesetter will use different characters or symbols to distinguish things with different meanings.
Crede mihi, nisi characteres carent, typotheta bonus signa diversa quae significationes diversas habent per characteres diversos distinguit.
adrianus wrote:You asked for help with understanding brackets, not me.
Lavrentivs wrote:By the way, I never quite figured out how angular parentheses <> are to be used, as opposed to square ones  and rounds. Perhaps there are varying practices. How appropriate is my above use, for instance? I've tried to look it up, but never found a satisfactory answer. (In an English selection from Aristotle (Irwin) they are used for gloss, but I suspect this is unconventional.)
adrianus wrote:There are, indeed. Strictly, "<>" aren't really angular brackets, or chevrons, at all. They are inequality signs, but it's no big deal, and they're used as brackets in lots of places, including for coding.
Lavrentivs wrote:By this principle taken as universal, one should ideally use a symbol for the apostrophe which were different from that for the closing single quotation mark.
Lavrentivs wrote:Adrian...arguing that chevrons should be visually different from inequalities
Lavrentivs wrote:we must reject this principle
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 125 guests