acc. as subject of substantivated inf? Cicero

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Lavrentivs
Textkit Fan
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: acc. as subject of substantivated inf? Cicero

Post by Lavrentivs » Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:10 am

Then I have no idea what you meant by:
Ignoro igitur quod illo dicere voluisti:
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.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: acc. as subject of substantivated inf? Cicero

Post by adrianus » Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:53 pm

This is a square bracket: [ &#91;, Unicode character Left Square Bracket U+005B
This is a curly bracket: { &#123;, Unicode character Left Curly Bracket U+007B
This is a round bracket: ( &#40;, Unicode character Left Parenthesis U+0028
This is a chevron or broken or angle bracket: ⟨ (&#12296;), Unicode character Left Angle Bracket U+3008
This is a chevron or broken or angle bracket: ⟨ &#9001;, Unicode character Left-pointing Angle Bracket U+2329
This is a corner bracket: 「 &#12300;, Unicode Left Corner Bracket U+300C.
This is an angle quotation mark: &#8249; Unicode character Left-pointing Angle Bracket U+2329
This is a mathematical white-square bracket, &#10214;, Unicode character Mathematical Left White Square Bracket U+27E6.
This is a mathematical white curly bracket, &#10627;, Unicode character Mathematical Left White Curly Bracket U+2983.
This is a black tortoise shell bracket, &#10647;, Unicode character Left Black Tortoise Shell Bracket U+2997.
This is a mathematical white tortoise shell bracket, &#10220;, Unicode character Mathematical White Tortoise Shell bracket U+27EC.
This is a mathematical angle bracket, ⟨ &#10216;, Unicode character Mathematical Left Angle Bracket U+27E8. Note its height.

This, however, is an inequality sign: < <, Unicode character Less-than sign, U+003C. It is not as tall as the mathematical angle bracket.

Modernly, especially in coding, many use the Unicode inequality sign as an angle bracket because it's in front of their nose on the keyboard. As I said, you are using an inequality sign for an angle bracket, because the sign that is in plain sight on your keyboard is officially called an inequality sign and it's of lesser height than the mathematical angle bracket. It is a common practice to use that key character as an angle bracket. It is not an offence. You don't break any law.

Per Unicode systema uncinos varios habes, ut angulatos, ut alatos, ut lunulas seu parentheses, ut fractos, ad scripta an cotidiana an mathematica aptos. Unâ cum eis sunt alii characteres formae similis uncinis: ut quaedam citationis signa, ut signa inaequalitatis.
His diebus, praesertim ordinatralibus in codicibus, multi charactere Unicode inaequalitatis pro uncino fracto utere solent cum character se in malleorum seriei facie opportunè ostendat. Ut dixi, inaequalitatis ei characteres a te supra dati quod minus alti uncinis fractis mathematicis. Non offendis. Non est legum violatio, sed factum typicum.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

Lavrentivs
Textkit Fan
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: acc. as subject of substantivated inf? Cicero

Post by Lavrentivs » Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:06 pm

Intellego, et bonum sciendo hoc puto, quod, etsi me nonnullo modo versatum habeo in rebus typographicis, ignograbam.

Lavrentivs
Textkit Fan
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: acc. as subject of substantivated inf? Cicero

Post by Lavrentivs » Mon Jul 09, 2012 2:32 pm

On the other hand, I don't know that unicode is a typographical authoritiy; such are to my mind (some of) the books that were printed before typography ceased to be a craft. Looking, f. ex., at Burnet's edition of Ethica Nicomachea printed in London 1900, the chevrons are not tall. Gauther's and Jolif's Èthique à Nicomaque, Paris, 1958, have taller chevrons, but also much broader than the ones in unicode. I doubt that either of these should have employed a different sign were it in need of signifying an inequality. Finally, neither Adobe Caslon Pro nor Garamond Premier Pro has chevrons distinct from inequalities. (And yes, I know my apostrophes aren't apostrophes, and normally I care, but I'm on a Windows computer that isn't mine and I can't be bothered finding out how to produce proper ones. Besides, this sans serif arguably isn't worth it.)

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: acc. as subject of substantivated inf? Cicero

Post by adrianus » Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:54 pm

The Unicode standard certainly is an authoritative standard and has been drawn up by many typographical authories. I'm sure you will find many variations over time. Maybe your computer can't display them or the applications you use can't display then, because otherwise you would see that both Adobe Caslon Pro and Garamond Premier Pro do exhibit the differences I was talking about between inequality signs and chevrons or angle brackets in the Unicode standard.

Certùm benè notus et auctoritate probatus est codex Unicode a multis artium typographicarum peritis scriptus. Scitum est variationes formae characterum per aeva and in aeva exstare. Forsit computatrum tuum vel programmata quae habes discrimina inter inaequalitatis signa et signa uncinorum fractorum monstrare non possunt; aliter capax quidem monstrandi utra scriptura quam citavisti, Adobe Caslon Pro et Garamond Premier Pro.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: acc. as subject of substantivated inf? Cicero

Post by adrianus » Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:18 pm

Lavrentivs wrote:I doubt that either of these should have employed a different sign were it in need of signifying an inequality.
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.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

Lavrentivs
Textkit Fan
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: acc. as subject of substantivated inf? Cicero

Post by Lavrentivs » Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:37 pm

Caslon:
http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/pdfs/1712.pdf
Garamond:
http://store1.adobe.com/type/browser/pdfs/1737.pdf

Really? Perhaps you are thinking of the difference between single guillemets and inequalities. Given this choice, I think one should use inequalities and not guillemets for chevrons. Or are you seeing something that I am not? Do you use XeLaTeX? If so, which commands would you use to produce your different characters?

Lavrentivs
Textkit Fan
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: acc. as subject of substantivated inf? Cicero

Post by Lavrentivs » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:06 pm

.
Last edited by Lavrentivs on Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lavrentivs
Textkit Fan
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: acc. as subject of substantivated inf? Cicero

Post by Lavrentivs » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:16 pm

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.
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. I admit that in this case it seems more logical to have a symbol that is more like ( [ {, but so long as this isn't found in a book that is older than digital printing, I'll allow myself to consider it less than obligatory.

The reason why it isn't found is perhaps that its use was very limited (to philology). To my mind, taking what one has is such a case, has a certain charm to it. (It resembles the case of the first universal quantifiers in Frege, which are just inverted As, hanging below the line. Here, using an actual A instead of some sans serif special symbol adjusted above the line is preferable.)

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: acc. as subject of substantivated inf? Cicero

Post by adrianus » Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:34 pm

Sorry, Laurentius. This is a forum for learning latin. Elsewhere you might learn about displaying Unicode characters and about chevrons in pre-digital books. Showing you where to look for chevrons won't help my or your latin.

Me paenitet, Laurenti. Hoc est forum ad latinum discendum. Alibi de Unicode, de scripturis typographicis, de uncinis fractis in libris ante aevum computatrale tibi discendum est. Latinum nostrum non adjuvat tibi monstrare ubi inveniantur uncini fracti.
Last edited by adrianus on Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.

Post Reply