Anyone know what these glyphs are?

BeauW's picture

I picked up an old grammer book (1868) the other day and found these strange glyphs in the section on making plural forms:

Does anyone know what the last two glyphs being pluralized are? I am curious.

As a bonus, did anyone know that the plural of beef is beeves?

DTY's picture

Ounce and scruple (apothecaries' measures). There are also minim and dram signs. And yes.

BeauW's picture

Wow, thanks. That is much more exciting than I expected.

R.'s picture

By the way: All these glyphs are included in Unicode, i. e. ounce (℥), scruple (℈), minim (♏) and dram (ℨ). However, they cannot be found in most typefaces: Even Cambria Math, Junicode and Lucida Sans Unicode are, for whatever reason, lacking ‘♏’; this latter is in Linux Libertine from which all the other symbols are absent again. Arial Unicode and Code2000 are complete in this respect — as probably some more are.

jstypo's picture

By the way, grammer is grammar, even in 1868 ;-)

Andreas Stötzner's picture

R.: ♏ is not ‘minim’, its the zodiac sign for Scorpio.

(More about measurement sings)

R.'s picture

In fact, it is, Andreas, but it may used in place of the minim sign.

BeauW's picture

"♏ is not ‘minim’, its the zodiac sign for Scorpio."

I found that confusing, looking up the unicode values. The Scorpio sign is NOT the Minum sign. They are different glyphs. Kind of close, but not quite. But we are supposed to pretend? Kind of irritating.

"By the way, grammer is grammar, even in 1868 ;-)"

Grammer isn't math, it can and has changed over the years. Usage is even more flexible.
(The book also lists 'wrought' as the past tense of 'work'. "I wrought overtime this week.")

Nick Shinn's picture

I didn't include those in my Victorian revival, the Modern Suite, but I did include the "per" symbol, for the sole reason I like the look of it. So I had to do a version for every style in the family; here are some:


I don't think it has much currency today. Even though customers could probably figure out what it meant, it's still a somewhat dubious commercial proposition.

What do you think?

John Hudson's picture

I found that confusing, looking up the unicode values. The Scorpio sign is NOT the Minum sign. They are different glyphs. Kind of close, but not quite. But we are supposed to pretend?

♏ U+264F is annotated ‘= minim, drop’, indicating that this character is intended to be used for both scorpius and minim.

Somewhat confusingly, ♍ U+264D (virgo) is annotated as ‘= minim (alternate glyph)’.

If you wanted to make the case for disunifying the minim sign from U+264F, you would need to be able to document a consistent glyph distinction in pre-Unicode usage.

Steven Acres's picture

Grammer isn't math, it can and has changed over the years. Usage is even more flexible.

Grammar isn't math. You're right about that. But spelling is spelling, and there's no such word as "grammer."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grammer

Sorry.

BeauW's picture

Ah, one of those prescriptive spellers :)
(said the dyslexic typophile)

Renaissance Man's picture

Non-prescriptivist type-o-file grammerians look at Ladle Rat Rotten Hut:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/ladle/

Steven Acres's picture

Non-prescriptivist type-o-file grammerians look at Ladle Rat Rotten Hut:

"Grammarians." :)

Thanks for the link, though. I definitely enjoyed it.

Renaissance Man's picture

Sorry you missed the point in my spelling "grammarians" as "grammerians". You don't object to type-o-file?

paulow's picture

I did design two "scrupples" to my Penabico font. Are they exagerated? What you think?

paulow's picture

I don't can find the exactly unicode for the minim (♏) - someone knows what is?

dtw's picture

[message deleted] - appropriate answer already given by John H above.

paulow's picture

THANKS, dtw and riccard0, I really dont see the first lines from John H.

Syndicate content Syndicate content