Talk:ᚉᚓᚂᚔ

Image

@Jberkel, Wikitiki89: One more please, and then we'll be done with June! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

ᚉᚓᚂᚔ (celi) rendered in the Noto Sans Ogham font.

--WikiTiki89 22:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Not my favourite font; I'm no Celticist, but I feel like the the diamonds should be vertical lines instead, just offset so that they intersect the stemline. @Angr gets the final say, I suppose. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree. I was choosing from Code2000, DejaVu Sans, Everson Mono, Noto Sans Ogham, Quivira, and Segoe UI Symbol. The latter three use diamonds, the former three use lines but the lines are too long. I'm not an expert, so I decided the diamonds were closer. --WikiTiki89 22:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

ᚉᚓᚂᚔ (celi) rendered in the Code2000 font.

Here is the Code2000 version in case that's better. --WikiTiki89 22:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I like that one, or at least it very closely resembles how I write in Ogham. I'll set it, and Angr can still exercise his veto if he feels otherwise. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but you're not a native speaker of Primitive Irish, so how you write it is irrelevant. I looked at some Ogham inscriptions and their short lines are about as short as the diamonds. I think the intent of the font designers was to keep the short length, but make it a bit more visible in small sizes or at a distance. Since we're displaying it fairly large, that doesn't really need to be taken into account. --WikiTiki89 22:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It comes down to whether you're trying to be faithful to inscription forms (the Noto Sans Ogham), where the vowels were usually little more than notches on the edge, or manuscript forms (Code2000) which required the short lines. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 22:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even know there were Ogham manuscripts. Anyway, the quotations in this entry are from inscriptions, so I would say we should go with the inscription form at least for this particular term. --WikiTiki89 22:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, Catsidhe! And given your point with regard to the citations, Wikitiki, I suppose we should use the Noto Sans after all. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that there's an Ogham manuscript corpus of any length, but there was a manuscript form, which is how we know the values for the unattested letters. See, eg., The Book of Ballymote f170r, Auraicept na n-Éces. It was something that an educated man should know, but far too clumsy for any prose, except if you were showing off how educated you were by writing super secret messages in it. See also Scholastic ogham --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 00:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the short "dots" for vowels, as in Noto Sans Ogham, especially since our two quotes for this word are from stone inscriptions, not manuscripts. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)