This is strange to me. This is clearly meant, in unicode, to be 'G' that we all know and love. It has uselessly expanded "the alphabet" (to be western-centric) in a confusable way. Unicode maybe should have been three dimensional, with "concept of G" in the 2D space, and "ways of representing G" behind G, along the third axis. All ways of representing G, whether little capital, capital, lower case, would or at least…
> Unicode maybe should have been three dimensional, with "concept of G" in the 2D space, and "ways of representing G" behind G, along the third axis. All ways of representing G, whether little capital, capital, lower case, would or at least could equate to conceptual G in the 2D space. It brings up interesting, long-standing problems. Which of these count as the same letters? * Letters in two languages with the same…
It gets worse than this. Example: the letters Ä and Ö exist in both Swedish and German (as an example).
In German they are actually counted as the letters A and O with diaereses above them, and they alphabetize together with other instances of the letters A and O, because that's what they are.
In Swedish those are their own letters, which are completely separate from the letters A and O. They get their own place in the alphabet (second-to last and last, respectively), and replacing them with AE and OE is technically not acceptable in Swedish like it is in German (though it's often done anyway, e.g. on airline tickets).
And in Unicode they are represented by the same code-point even though in one language it is a letter, and in the other language it's only a variation on another letter. What a mess.