5 ms·

There was a... "tradition" is a strong word, perhaps "trend" is better. Authors making copies of the Bible or related works in Cyrillic, that the letter O (equi

by lmkg 4y ago

There was a... "tradition" is a strong word, perhaps "trend" is better. Authors making copies of the Bible or related works in Cyrillic, that the letter O (equivalent to Roman O) at the beginning of the word for "eye" would be stylized to look like an eye. There are a variety of glyphs along these lines: Ꙩ, Ꙫ, Ꙭ. All of them, including ꙮ, were added to Unicode as a single group. The glyph "ꙮ" was used to refer to an Angel with a whole buncha eyeballs, as one does. In terms of texts that survive today, this specific glyph has exactly one use in a single manuscript from the 1400's. It might have been used more, in texts which don't survive. But it is part of a larger trend, and I bet that its inclusion in Unicode depends strongly on that. But yeah, in itself the ꙮ character exists solely so that modern computers are capable of a more-faithful rendition of the transcription of a single handwritten copy of the Book of Psalms.

happytoexplain 4y ago
Thank you for describing the missing context. I couldn't understand why this stylized letter deserved a code point more than the uncountable others. I don't necessarily agree still, but the fact that this character was only unique within a larger trend makes it much more reasonable.
henriquecm8 4y ago
So you are saying that the glyph is now more biblically accurate?
- int_19h 4y ago
  The Bible doesn't specify how many eyes seraphim have. "In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. ... Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings."
cyral 4y ago
> modern computers are capable of a more-faithful rendition of the transcription of a single handwritten copy of the Book of Psalms. I wonder if there is even a copy of the book transcribed to actual characters or if it only exists as scanned PDF copies? If anyone did transcribe it, would they have any knowledge that the ꙮ character even exists on computers?
vintermann 4y ago
Hah, and here I thought I was making a joke when I called it a biblically accurate O!
caf 4y ago
"meme"

by lmkg 4y ago

happytoexplain 4y ago

Thank you for describing the missing context. I couldn't understand why this stylized letter deserved a code point more than the uncountable others. I don't necessarily agree still, but the fact that this character was only unique within a larger trend makes it much more reasonable.

henriquecm8 4y ago

So you are saying that the glyph is now more biblically accurate?

int_19h 4y ago
The Bible doesn't specify how many eyes seraphim have. "In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. ... Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings."

cyral 4y ago

> modern computers are capable of a more-faithful rendition of the transcription of a single handwritten copy of the Book of Psalms. I wonder if there is even a copy of the book transcribed to actual characters or if it only exists as scanned PDF copies? If anyone did transcribe it, would they have any knowledge that the ꙮ character even exists on computers?

vintermann 4y ago

Hah, and here I thought I was making a joke when I called it a biblically accurate O!

caf 4y ago

"meme"