Runic (Unicode block)
Runic | |
---|---|
Range | U+16A0..U+16FF (96 code points) |
Plane | BMP |
Scripts | Runic (86 char.) Common (3 char.) |
Major alphabets | Futhark |
Assigned | 89 code points |
Unused | 7 reserved code points |
Unicode version history | |
3.0 (1999) | 81 (+81) |
7.0 (2014) | 89 (+8) |
Unicode documentation | |
Code chart ∣ Web page | |
Note: [1][2] |
Runic is a Unicode block containing runic characters. It was introduced in Unicode 3.0 (1999), with eight additional characters introduced in Unicode 7.0 (2014).[3] The original encoding of runes in UCS was based on the recommendations of the "ISO Runes Project" submitted in 1997.[a]
The block is intended for the representation of text written in Elder Futhark, Anglo-Saxon runes, Younger Futhark (both in the long-branch and short-twig variants), Scandinavian medieval runes and early modern runic calendars; the additions introduced in version 7.0 in addition allow support of the mode of writing Modern English in Anglo-Saxon runes used by J. R. R. Tolkien, and the special vowel signs used in the Franks Casket inscription.[b]
Background
[edit]The distinction made by Unicode between character and glyph variant is somewhat problematic in the case of the runes; the reason is the high degree of variation of letter shapes in historical inscriptions, with many "characters" appearing in highly variant shapes, and many specific shapes taking the role of a number of different characters over the period of runic use (roughly the 3rd to 14th centuries AD). The division between Elder Futhark, Younger Futhark and Anglo-Saxon runes are well-established and useful categories, but they are connected by a continuum of gradual development, inscriptions using a mixture of older and newer forms of runes, etc. For this reason, the runic Unicode block is of very limited usefulness in representing of historical inscriptions and is better suited for contemporary runic writing than for palaeographic purposes.
The original publication of the Unicode standard is explicitly aware of these problems, and of the compromises necessary regarding the "character / glyph" dichotomy. The charts published show only "idealized reference glyphs", and explicitly delegates the task of creating useful implementations of the standard to font designers, ideally necessitating a separate font for each historical period.[c] Glyph shape was taken into consideration explicitly for "unification" of an older rune with one of its descendant characters.[d] On the other hand, the Younger Futhark era script variants of long-branch, and short-twig, in principle a historical instance of "glyph variants", have been encoded separately, while the further variant form of staveless runes has not.[e]
The ISO Runes Project treated the runes as essentially glyph variants of the Latin script. Everson argued that the native futhark ordering is well established, and that it is unusual for UCS to order letters not in Latin alphabetical order rather than according to native tradition, and a corresponding sorting order of the runic letter Unicode characters was adopted for ISO/IEC 14651 in 2001.[f]
Characters
[edit]The original 81 characters adopted for Unicode 3.0 included 75 letters, three punctuation marks and three "runic symbols".
The names given to the runic letter characters are "a bit clumsy" in a deliberate compromise between scholarly and amateur requirements. They list simplified (ASCII) representations of the three names of a "unified" rune in the Elder Futhark, the Anglo-Saxon and the Younger Futhark traditions, followed by the letter transliterating the rune (if applicable).[g] The ordering follows the basic futhark sequence, but with (non-unified) variants inserted after the standard Elder Futhark form of each letter, as follows:
Code point | Rune | Name | Elder Futhark | Anglo-Saxon | Younger Futhark (long-branch) |
Younger Futhark (short-twig) |
Medieval | Dalecarlian |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
16A0 | ᚠ | FEHU FEOH FE F | ||||||
16A1 | ᚡ | V | ||||||
16A2 | ᚢ | URUZ UR U | ||||||
16A3 | ᚣ | YR | ||||||
16A4 | ᚤ | Y | ||||||
16A5 | ᚥ | W | [h] | |||||
16A6 | ᚦ | THURISAZ THURS THORN | ||||||
16A7 | ᚧ | ETH | ||||||
16A8 | ᚨ | ANSUZ A | [i] | |||||
16A9 | ᚩ | OS O | ||||||
16AA | ᚪ | AC A | ||||||
16AB | ᚫ | AESC | ||||||
16AC | ᚬ | LONG-BRANCH-OSS O | ||||||
16AD | ᚭ | SHORT-TWIG-OSS O | ||||||
16AE | ᚮ | O | ||||||
16AF | ᚯ | OE | ||||||
16B0 | ᚰ | ON | [j] | |||||
16B1 | ᚱ | RAIDO RAD REID R | ||||||
16B2 | ᚲ | KAUNA | ||||||
16B3 | ᚳ | CEN | ||||||
16B4 | ᚴ | KAUN K | ||||||
16B5 | ᚵ | G | ||||||
16B6 | ᚶ | ENG | [k] | |||||
16B7 | ᚷ | GEBO GYFU G | [l] | |||||
16B8 | ᚸ | GAR | ||||||
16B9 | ᚹ | WUNJO WYNN W | ||||||
16BA | ᚺ | HAGLAZ H | ||||||
16BB | ᚻ | HAEGL H | ||||||
16BC | ᚼ | LONG-BRANCH-HAGALL H | ||||||
16BD | ᚽ | SHORT-TWIG-HAGALL H | ||||||
16BE | ᚾ | NAUDIZ NYD NAUD N | ||||||
16BF | ᚿ | SHORT-TWIG-NAUD N | ||||||
16C0 | ᛀ | DOTTED-N | [m] | |||||
16C1 | ᛁ | ISAZ IS ISS I | ||||||
16C2 | ᛂ | E | ||||||
16C3 | ᛃ | JERAN J | ||||||
16C4 | ᛄ | GER | ||||||
16C5 | ᛅ | LONG-BRANCH-AR AE | ||||||
16C6 | ᛆ | SHORT-TWIG-AR A | ||||||
16C7 | ᛇ | IWAZ EOH | ||||||
16C8 | ᛈ | PERTHO PEORTH P | ||||||
16C9 | ᛉ | ALGIZ EOLHX | ||||||
16CA | ᛊ | SOWILO S | ||||||
16CB | ᛋ | SIGEL LONG-BRANCH-SOL S | ||||||
16CC | ᛌ | SHORT-TWIG-SOL S | ||||||
16CD | ᛍ | C | ||||||
16CE | ᛎ | Z | ||||||
16CF | ᛏ | TIWAZ TIR TYR T | ||||||
16D0 | ᛐ | SHORT-TWIG-TYR T | ||||||
16D1 | ᛑ | D | ||||||
16D2 | ᛒ | BERKANAN BEORC BJARKAN B | ||||||
16D3 | ᛓ | SHORT-TWIG-BJARKAN B | ||||||
16D4 | ᛔ | DOTTED-P | ||||||
16D5 | ᛕ | OPEN-P | ||||||
16D6 | ᛖ | EHWAZ EH E | ||||||
16D7 | ᛗ | MANNAZ MAN M | ||||||
16D8 | ᛘ | LONG-BRANCH-MADR M | ||||||
16D9 | ᛙ | SHORT-TWIG-MADR M | ||||||
16DA | ᛚ | LAUKAZ LAGU LOGR L | ||||||
16DB | ᛛ | DOTTED-L | [n] | |||||
16DC | ᛜ | INGWAZ | ||||||
16DD | ᛝ | ING | ||||||
16DE | ᛞ | DAGAZ DAEG D | ||||||
16DF | ᛟ | OTHALAN ETHEL O | ||||||
16E0 | ᛠ | EAR | ||||||
16E1 | ᛡ | IOR | ||||||
16E2 | ᛢ | CWEORTH | ||||||
16E3 | ᛣ | CALC | ||||||
16E4 | ᛤ | CEALC | ||||||
16E5 | ᛥ | STAN | ||||||
16E6 | ᛦ | LONG-BRANCH-YR | ||||||
16E7 | ᛧ | SHORT-TWIG-YR | ||||||
16E8 | ᛨ | ICELANDIC-YR | ||||||
16E9 | ᛩ | Q | ||||||
16EA | ᛪ | X |
The three "punctuation marks" are three variant forms of separators found in runic inscriptions, one a single dot, one a double dot and one cross-shaped.
Code point | Rune | Name |
---|---|---|
16EB | ᛫ | RUNIC SINGLE PUNCTUATION |
16EC | ᛬ | RUNIC MULTIPLE PUNCTUATION |
16ED | ᛭ | RUNIC CROSS PUNCTUATION |
The three "runic symbols" are the Arlaug, Tvimadur and Belgthor symbols used exclusively for enumerating years in runic calendars of the early modern period.
Code point | Rune | Name |
---|---|---|
16EE | ᛮ | RUNIC ARLAUG SYMBOL |
16EF | ᛯ | RUNIC TVIMADUR SYMBOL |
16F0 | ᛰ | RUNIC BELGTHOR SYMBOL |
The eight additional characters introduced in Unicode 7.0 concern the Anglo-Saxon runes. Three are variant letters used by J. R. R. Tolkien to write Modern English in Anglo-Saxon runes, representing the English k, oo and sh graphemes.[o]
Code point | Rune | Name |
---|---|---|
16F1 | ᛱ | RUNIC LETTER K |
16F2 | ᛲ | RUNIC LETTER SH |
16F3 | ᛳ | RUNIC LETTER OO |
The five others are letter variants used in one of the Franks Casket inscriptions, "cryptogrammic" replacements for the standard Anglo-Saxon o, i, e, a and æ vowel runes.
Code point | Rune | Name |
---|---|---|
16F4 | ᛴ | RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET OS |
16F5 | ᛵ | RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET IS |
16F6 | ᛶ | RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET EH |
16F7 | ᛷ | RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET AC |
16F8 | ᛸ | RUNIC LETTER FRANKS CASKET AESC |
Fonts
[edit]Numerous Unicode fonts support the Runic block, although most of them are strictly limited to displaying a single glyph per character, often closely modeled on the shape shown in the Unicode block chart.
Free Unicode fonts that support the runic block include: Junicode, GNU FreeFont (in its monospace, bitmap face), Caslon,[citation needed] the serif font Quivira, and Babelstone Runic in its many different formats. Commercial fonts supporting the block include Alphabetum, Code2000, Everson Mono, Aboriginal Serif, Aboriginal Sans, Segoe UI Symbol, and TITUS Cyberbit Basic.
Microsoft Windows did not support the Runic block in any of its included fonts during 2000—2008, but with the release of Windows 7 in 2009, the system has been delivered with a font supporting the block, Segoe UI Symbol. In Windows 10 the Runic block was moved into the font Segoe UI Historic.[13]
Chart
[edit]Runic[1][2] Official Unicode Consortium code chart (PDF) | ||||||||||||||||
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | |
U+16Ax | ᚠ | ᚡ | ᚢ | ᚣ | ᚤ | ᚥ | ᚦ | ᚧ | ᚨ | ᚩ | ᚪ | ᚫ | ᚬ | ᚭ | ᚮ | ᚯ |
U+16Bx | ᚰ | ᚱ | ᚲ | ᚳ | ᚴ | ᚵ | ᚶ | ᚷ | ᚸ | ᚹ | ᚺ | ᚻ | ᚼ | ᚽ | ᚾ | ᚿ |
U+16Cx | ᛀ | ᛁ | ᛂ | ᛃ | ᛄ | ᛅ | ᛆ | ᛇ | ᛈ | ᛉ | ᛊ | ᛋ | ᛌ | ᛍ | ᛎ | ᛏ |
U+16Dx | ᛐ | ᛑ | ᛒ | ᛓ | ᛔ | ᛕ | ᛖ | ᛗ | ᛘ | ᛙ | ᛚ | ᛛ | ᛜ | ᛝ | ᛞ | ᛟ |
U+16Ex | ᛠ | ᛡ | ᛢ | ᛣ | ᛤ | ᛥ | ᛦ | ᛧ | ᛨ | ᛩ | ᛪ | ᛫ | ᛬ | ᛭ | ᛮ | ᛯ |
U+16Fx | ᛰ | ᛱ | ᛲ | ᛳ | ᛴ | ᛵ | ᛶ | ᛷ | ᛸ | |||||||
Notes |
History
[edit]The following Unicode-related documents record the purpose and process of defining specific characters in the Runic block:
Version | Final code points[p] | Count | UTC ID | L2 ID | WG2 ID | Document |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.0 | U+16A0..16F0 | 81 | N1210 | Proposal Concerning Inclusion of the Runic Characters, 28 April 1995 | ||
X3L2/95-117 | N1222 | Everson, Michael (20 May 1995), Names and ordering of the Fuþark (Runic) characters: comment on N1210 [UTC/1995-028] | ||||
UTC/1995-xxx | "Runic Proposal", Unicode Technical Committee Meeting #65, Minutes, 2 June 1995 | |||||
N1229 | Response to Michael Everson comments (N 1230) on Runic, 16 June 1995 | |||||
N1230 | Everson, Michael (21 June 1995), Feedback on Runic | |||||
N1239 | Ólafsson, Þorvaður Kári (23 June 1995), Icelandic position on Runic | |||||
X3L2/95-090 | N1253 (doc, txt) | Umamaheswaran, V. S.; Ksar, Mike (9 September 1995), "6.4.8", Unconfirmed Minutes of WG 2 Meeting # 28 in Helsinki, Finland; 1995-06-26--27 | ||||
X3L2/95-118 | N1262 | Everson, Michael (19 September 1995), Consensus Name and ordering proposal for the Fuþark | ||||
X3L2/96-035 | N1330 | Lundström, Wera (13 March 1996), Revised Proposal Concerning Inclusion into ISO/IEC 10646 of the Repertoire of Runic Characters | ||||
X3L2/96-051 | N1382 | Runic Script: Description and Proposed Character Name Table, 18 April 1996 | ||||
N1353 | Umamaheswaran, V. S.; Ksar, Mike (25 June 1996), "8.6", Draft minutes of WG2 Copenhagen Meeting # 30 | |||||
UTC/1996-027.2 | Greenfield, Steve (1 July 1996), "E. Runic", UTC #69 Minutes (PART 2) | |||||
X3L2/96-100 | N1417 (doc, txt) | Second Revised Proposal for Runic Character Names, 23 July 1996 | ||||
X3L2/96-101 | N1443 | Everson, Michael; Jarnefors, Olle (4 August 1996), Allocating Ogham and Runes to the BMP: a strategy for making the BMP maximally useful | ||||
N1453 | Ksar, Mike; Umamaheswaran, V. S. (6 December 1996), "8.6", WG 2 Minutes - Quebec Meeting 31 | |||||
X3L2/96-123 | Aliprand, Joan; Winkler, Arnold (18 December 1996), "4.5 Runic", Preliminary Minutes - UTC #71 & X3L2 #168 ad hoc meeting, San Diego - December 5-6, 1996 | |||||
L2/97-048 | N1542 | Everson, Michael (27 March 1997), Proposed pDAM text for Runic | ||||
N1620 | Everson, Michael (3 July 1997), Runic Proposal Update | |||||
L2/97-288 | N1603 | Umamaheswaran, V. S. (24 October 1997), "8.5", Unconfirmed Meeting Minutes, WG 2 Meeting # 33, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 20 June – 4 July 1997 | ||||
L2/98-077 | N1695 | Paterson, Bruce (22 February 1998), Proposed Disposition of Comments on SC2 letter ballot on FPDAMs 16, 19, & 20 (Braille patterns, Runic, Ogham) | ||||
L2/98-132 | N1771 | Paterson, Bruce (6 April 1998), Revised Text of ISO 10646 Amendment 19 - Runic | ||||
L2/98-134 | N1772 | Paterson, Bruce (6 April 1998), Revised Text of ISO 10646 Amendment 20 - Ogham | ||||
N1763 | Paterson, Bruce (6 April 1998), Disposition of Comments Report on SC 2 N2970: Amendment 19 - Runic | |||||
L2/98-286 | N1703 | Umamaheswaran, V. S.; Ksar, Mike (2 July 1998), "6.2.3 FPDAM-19 on Runic and FPDAM-20 on Ogham", Unconfirmed Meeting Minutes, WG 2 Meeting #34, Redmond, WA, USA; 1998-03-16--20 | ||||
L2/01-023 | Everson, Michael (9 January 2001), Ordering the Runic script | |||||
7.0 | U+16F1..16F8 | 8 | L2/11-096R | N4013R | Everson, Michael; West, Andrew (10 May 2011), Proposal to encode additional Runic characters in the UCS | |
N4103 | "11.9 Additional Runic characters", Unconfirmed minutes of WG 2 meeting 58, 3 January 2012 | |||||
L2/12-007 | Moore, Lisa (14 February 2012), "C.5", UTC #130 / L2 #227 Minutes | |||||
N4253 (pdf, doc) | "M59.16l", Unconfirmed minutes of WG 2 meeting 59, 12 September 2012 | |||||
|
Footnotes
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "Unicode character database". The Unicode Standard. Retrieved 26 July 2023.
- ^ "Enumerated Versions of The Unicode Standard". The Unicode Standard. Retrieved 26 July 2023.
- ^ Everson, Michael; West, Andrew (10 May 2011). "Proposal to encode additional Runic characters in the UCS" (PDF). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N4013R.
- ^ Gustavson, Helmer (2004) [2002]. "Nytt om runer". pp. 45–46. 17.
- ^ Digitala runor. Nordisk ministerråd (Nordic Council of Ministers. 1997. pp. see especially 29ff for the list of proposed characters. ISBN 9789289301404.
- ^ "Cirth: U+E080 - U+E0FF". ConScript Unicode Registry encoding.
- ^ "The Unicode Standard" (PDF) (3.0 ed.). January 2000. chapter 7.6, pp. 174–175.
- ^ Everson, Michael (2001). "Ordering the runic script" (PDF). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG20 N809. Everson's proposal was accepted and the character sort order was changed in 2001.
- ^ a b LaBonté, Alain, ed. (10 February 2001). "Final disposition of comments of ballot results on PDAM-1 to ISO/IEC 14651:2001". Project editor. ISO/IEC 14651:2001. SC22/WG20. SC22/WG20 N882R.
- ^ Everson, "Ordering the runic script" (2001) p. 1.
- ^ Morris, Richard Lee (1988). Runic and Mediterranean Epigraphy. p. 130. ISBN 8774926837.
- ^ Everson, Michael; West, Andrew (10 May 2011). "Proposal to encode additional Runic characters in the UCS" (PDF). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N4013R.
- ^ "Script and Font Support in Windows". Microsoft. Archived from the original on 13 September 2015. Retrieved 4 September 2015.