Date: Fri Jan 04 2008 - 05:16:59 CST
Quoting John Hudson <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Michael Everson wrote:
>> But the dot n that capital form is not significant.
> I don't think you can determine that by fiat. Someone went to the
> trouble of creating this special letter with a dot, and that indicates
> that they thought the dot *was* significant. Consider: without the dot
> the letter would be much more legible, would cause few problems of
> inkspread filling in the narrow gaps above and below the dot, and yet
> the dot was considered so significant that it was maintained despite
> these considerations.
> You are right that the dot does not need to be there *if* this were an
> uppercase script style G, but the very fact that the dot is there --
> that someone decided that it needed to be there -- is a good indication
> that the letter is something distinct. An uppercase script style G is
> not used contrastively in the single document in which we have so far
> seen this letter used, but that shape of G would have been known in
> various guises, and yet the makers of this book decided that they
> needed a distinctive letter with this significant dot.
However without a constrastive G one could argue that the printer is
just trying to show what he considers to be the true nature of G.
The choice of a lower case j to go with the capital G is clearly made
for reasons of style.
> Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
> Gulf Islands, BC email@example.com
> The Lord entered her to become a servant.
> The Word entered her to keep silence in her womb.
> The thunder entered her to be quiet.
> -- St Ephrem the Syrian
This message sent through Virus Free Email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 04 2008 - 05:20:33 CST