cistercian

I was thinking using ZWJ because the staff is always implied by the usage of Cistercian numerals.

Can anyone who works with the Unicode consortium explain why Cistercian numerals aren’t just part of Unicode?

Anyone could create their own Cistercian shorthand - and Medieval writers did use all sorts of shorthand.

This is my first exposure to Cistercian numbers but it looks like a unadorned staff would fit for the bare zero.

The Cistercian numarals encode a bit over 13 bits per glyph, of course.

The addition tables for Cistercian numbers has 100,000,000 entries; nobody will memorize that.

And to further relate to this post, Cistercian numerals in SVG, presented in a fashion usable by screen readers (has <title> with Arabic numerals).

Not my work, but I found this 3d printed digital clock using cistercian numeral system online.

Here’s the description: The abandoned chapel of a Cistercian abbey.

I wonder if these constraints are inate to the problem (inescapable trade-offs) or circumstantial to the particular choices of the Cistercian monks...

But also is there anything with Cistercian cognitive efficiency?

Authoring font ligatures to support that might not be fun, though, but also the cistercian glyphs are pretty simple concatenative structures almost perfectly designed for simple ligatures.

Cistercian might make sense of ZWJ sequences of existing numerals plus a "cistercian mode selector".

"The Standard of Living in German and Austrian Cistercian Monasteries of the Late Middle Ages".

That’s when the Cistercian legate Arnaud Amalric supposedly gave his infamous order: “Caedite eos; Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” “Kill them all; for the Lord knows those that are His.” It’s a paraphrase of 2 Timothy 2:19 (“The Lord knoweth them that are his”).

Cistercian numbers really only have 0-9, in four possible orientations.