'cv01' and 'cv02' are incomplete

[dscorbett]

Font

NotoSansChorasmian-Regular.otf

Where the font came from, and when

Site: https://github.com/notofonts/chorasmian/releases/tag/NotoSansChorasmian-v1.003
Date: 2023-09-25

Font version

Version 1.003

Issue

Some positional forms of variant 'cv01' and 'cv02' glyphs for certain characters are missing. They probably should exist. Ideally, you would consult an expert on Chorasmian, but I think my suggestions below are not unreasonable. Alternatively, 'cv01' and 'cv02' should be removed as insufficiently useful.

Glyph suggestions

'cv01' gives gimel a longer horizontal stroke, but only in isolated position. Figure 21 of L2/18-164R2 includes ⟨𐾳𐿄𐾶⟩ with an initial 'cv01'-style gimel, which, unlike the default gimel, seems to connect at the baseline and at the horizontal stroke. Figure 20 has a different initial archaic gimel in ⟨𐾳𐾾𐾺𐿄⟩ where its top stroke becomes the baseline. 'cv01' should presumably work for medial and final gimel too.

'cv01' gives taw a gap on its right half, but only in isolated position. The only reason I can think of to not support it in other positions is that this is an archaic style of taw from the older, non-cursive variant of Chorasmian. Coin Kh7 might be counterexample, with ⟨𐾰𐿂𐿄𐾰𐾶⟩ with a medial 'cv01'-style taw.

'cv02' gives aleph an archaic, cross-shaped glyph, but only in final and sometimes medial position. The one in final position might not exist: figure 15 shows various forms of aleph, and the only one with a cross-shaped glyph is in medial position. In styles where the cross-shaped medial glyph is used, I’d guess that it is used in all medial positions, instead of sometimes being replaced by the midpoint-joining alephchor.middle.cv01. That is, it seems more likely to me that in that style of Chorasmian, the medial aleph is fundamentally cross-shaped, and so there is no reason a scribe would have replaced it with a very different-looking medial glyph.

'cv01' gives nun a horizontal-tailed glyph, but only in isolated position. Figure 22 seems to show a final horizontal-tailed nun in ⟨𐾵𐾺𐾰𐾾⟩.

Alternative solution

What is the purpose of 'cv01' and 'cv02' in this font? It is to cover all the glyph variants mentioned in the Unicode proposal. I don’t think that is a useful goal. Gimel, taw, aleph, and nun are not special: most of the letters changed shape greatly over the centuries. Even with all the above suggestions, the font won’t be usable for a type facsimile of the archaic style of coins and silver vessels. For example, the archaic glyph of the final kaph in ⟨𐾽𐾼𐾻‌𐾰⟩, a common word on coins, is not included in this font.

If multiple styles need support, support them fully with stylistic sets. If not, why support a few arbitrary characters’ variants?

Character data

𐾳 𐾳𐿄𐾶
U+10FB3 CHORASMIAN LETTER GIMEL
U+0020 SPACE
U+10FB3 CHORASMIAN LETTER GIMEL
U+10FC4 CHORASMIAN LETTER TAW
U+10FB6 CHORASMIAN LETTER WAW

𐾳 𐾳𐾾𐾺𐿄
U+10FB3 CHORASMIAN LETTER GIMEL
U+0020 SPACE
U+10FB3 CHORASMIAN LETTER GIMEL
U+10FBE CHORASMIAN LETTER NUN
U+10FBA CHORASMIAN LETTER YODH
U+10FC4 CHORASMIAN LETTER TAW

𐿄 𐾰𐿂𐿄𐾰𐾶
U+10FC4 CHORASMIAN LETTER TAW
U+0020 SPACE
U+10FB0 CHORASMIAN LETTER ALEPH
U+10FC2 CHORASMIAN LETTER RESH
U+10FC4 CHORASMIAN LETTER TAW
U+10FB0 CHORASMIAN LETTER ALEPH
U+10FB6 CHORASMIAN LETTER WAW

𐾸𐾰 𐾸𐾰𐾸
U+10FB8 CHORASMIAN LETTER ZAYIN
U+10FB0 CHORASMIAN LETTER ALEPH
U+0020 SPACE
U+10FB8 CHORASMIAN LETTER ZAYIN
U+10FB0 CHORASMIAN LETTER ALEPH
U+10FB8 CHORASMIAN LETTER ZAYIN

𐾾 𐾵𐾺𐾰𐾾
U+10FBE CHORASMIAN LETTER NUN
U+0020 SPACE
U+10FB5 CHORASMIAN LETTER HE
U+10FBA CHORASMIAN LETTER YODH
U+10FB0 CHORASMIAN LETTER ALEPH
U+10FBE CHORASMIAN LETTER NUN

Screenshots