Talk:Glyph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you include an image with a glyph ?? compared with a normal type. TIA (Thanks In Advance). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.127.11 (talk • contribs)

We need Robert Langdon over here. Ironiridis 03:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of ligature

While ffi is not a character, it can be a glyph, when combined as a ligature. Shinobu 13:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

that's exactly what the article is saying now. the removed statement claimed that ffi could be a character, which is incorrect. dab (ᛏ) 10:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm more at unease with this: "The term for the abstract entity represented by a glyph is character". What I'm trying to say is that this should perhaps be rephrased a little. Something like "The term for the abstract entities glyphs represent is character". That way you don't rule out ligatures. They are discussed further on in the text, but I still feel this paragraph feels a bit odd. Maybe it's just me. Shinobu 13:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In the sentence: 'But "glyph" first came to widespread European attention with the engravings and in guild wars lithographs from'... the 'guild wars' link goes to the article on the video game of that name. I'm not sure what it was supposed to link to, but i'm guessing it wasn't that. 4.248.221.49 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need Glyph (typography) and Glyph (archaeology)?

This article is about the use of the term "glyph" in typography but does not address the term glyph as it pertains to archaeology. This article is missing, to quote Wiktionary: "A figure carved in relief or incised, especially representing a sound, word, or idea [or] Any non-verbal symbol that imparts information".

I'm thinking that we might need 2 articles?? Madman 04:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] glyph vs. allograph

Some sources may use 'glyph' to mean 'allograph', but I doubt that's the predominant meaning. Per the OED, a 'character' is a distinctive written symbol (that is, a grapheme), but a glyph is specifically a carved symbol, not a graphic variant of a character. Given the ambiguity, wouldn't this article be better moved to allograph? kwami (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)