Re: The Geejay

Date: Fri Jan 04 2008 - 05:16:59 CST

  • Next message: David Starner: "Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"

    Quoting John Hudson <>:

    > 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.


    > JH
    > --
    > Tiro Typeworks
    > Gulf Islands, BC
    > 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