Skip to main content

meaning - If a “tittle” sits atop an “i” or a “j” (“ı” or “ȷ”), then where do “jots” sit?


In the KJV translation of Matthew 5:18, it reads:



For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.



If a tittle sits atop an i or a j (ı or ȷ), then where do jots sit?


So what is a jot, anyway?




P.S. Here are the Unicode code points missing their tittles:


‭ i  0069       LATIN SMALL LETTER I
* Turkish and Azerbaijani use 0130 for uppercase
x (latin small letter dotless i - 0131)
x (mathematical italic small dotless i - 1D6A4)
‭ j 006A LATIN SMALL LETTER J
x (latin small letter dotless j - 0237)
x (mathematical italic small dotless j - 1D6A5)
‭ ı 0131 LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I
* Turkish, Azerbaijani
* uppercase is 0049
x (latin small letter i - 0069)
‭ ȷ 0237 LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J
x (mathematical italic small dotless j - 1D6A5)
‭ ɟ 025F LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J WITH STROKE
* voiced palatal stop
* typographically a turned f, but better thought of as a form of j
* "gy" in Hungarian orthography
* also archaic phonetic for palatoalveolar affricate 02A4
‭ ʄ 0284 LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J WITH STROKE AND HOOK
* implosive palatal stop
* typographically based on 025F, not on 0283
‭ ᶡ 1DA1 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL DOTLESS J WITH STROKE
# 025F
‭ 𝚤 1D6A4 MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL DOTLESS I
= imath
x (latin small letter dotless i - 0131)
x (mathematical italic small i - 1D456)
# 0131 latin small letter dotless i
‭ 𝚥 1D6A5 MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL DOTLESS J
= jmath
x (latin small letter dotless j - 0237)
x (mathematical italic small j - 1D457)

# 0237 latin small letter dotless j

Answer



Jot and tittle are both technological waste; scraps on the floor, left over from a few millennia of literacy technology. There isn't really a meaning distinction between them; both are nonce forms that refer to any small chunk of writing.


And both are used mostly as NPIs in negative contexts, especially in the open Verb + Minimal Direct Object Construction, e.g drink a drop, do a thing, give a damn/shit, lift a finger, bat an eye, eat a bite, ...


Jot comes from the Hebrew letter Yod (י), the smallest letter in the alphabet, representing /i/ and /y/ (to the extent they are different in any given language). When Greek adopted the Semitic alphabet, Yod got renamed Iota, and iota is also used in negative contexts:



  • He hasn't done one jot/bit/scintilla/iota of work.


Tittle is a variant of title, a word borrowed from Latin, where the sense of 'little bitty piece' of writing was fixed in Latin usage, according to the OED. It appears almost exclusively in the fixed phrase jot(s) and tittle(s).


In English, some have apparently reanalyzed jot as representing the dot on lowercase I, but that's just because it's the smallest chunk of our writing system. That dot on the lowercase I and J is just another example of a diacritic mark, like ö ő å í è ç š ū ñ.


Turkish uses both dotted i /i/ and undotted ı /ɨ/ to represent different (but related) vowels. İnterestingly, their respective capital letters are also different -- there's a dot on one (İ, i) but not the other (I, ı).


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.