Re: logos, symbols, and ligatures

From: Werner LEMBERG (
Date: Mon Nov 05 2007 - 02:52:00 CST

  • Next message: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven: "Re: logos, symbols, and ligatures"

    > (Considering only pure typographic ligatures, not any kind of
    > embellishing ligature.)
    > Then you would either:
    > a) get an ugly overlap for "auflegen" (why accept that?), or

    This is not acceptable, of course.

    > b) get an ugly extra spacing for "auflegen" (why accept that?), or

    This isn't ugly but very useful sometimes. Just consider the word

      Kau-fladen = chewing pancake
      Kauf-laden = shop

    (the first one is rather constructed, but it's a valid and meaningful
    concatenation of two German words).
    > c) there is no need for a ligature anyway, so why force one (that is
    > visually distinct from not ligating) for "fliegen", or

    Is there ever a typographical need for a ligature in the latin script?

    > d) need to use a special f glyph to avoid the overlap (and that
    > would technically be a ligature, though actually separating the
    > glyphs), which is unlikely to be aesthetically pleasing.

    Hmm. As described in (b), the small optical aid to give syllable
    boundaries in German is useful even for native speakers. However,
    this is my personal opinion, and others may think differently.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 05 2007 - 02:54:03 CST