Re: Fw: Re: ß vs. ſs

From: Andrew West (
Date: Thu Mar 11 2010 - 17:21:15 CST

  • Next message: Andrew West: "Re: property, character, and sequence name loose matching"

    On 11 March 2010 17:58, philip chastney <> wrote:
    > as far as English goes, I normally expect to see (e.g) "princess"
    > in certain contexts, I would not be surprised to see "princeſs"
    > I would never, in my wildest nightmares, expect to see "princeß"

    I can't imagine why not -- it is common enough in italic text in 16th
    and 17th century English printed books, e.g.


    As the ß-form ligature normally only occurs in italic text, and in
    roman text the same word is normally written using either a ligatured
    ſſ medially or an unligatured ſs finally, I would agree with David
    that what looks like ß in English (French, Italian, etc.) should best
    be represented as an ſs ligature (I would use ſ-ZWJ-s to indicate to
    the font that a ligature is required), and that way a suitably
    designed italic font would use a ß-glyph whereas a roman font would
    not. Of course, in practice there probably aren't any fonts that
    currently do this, but, in my opinion, if you are recording texts then
    you should do what is correct even if the fonts currently available do
    not render the results as desired.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 11 2010 - 17:25:55 CST