Re: Latin chi and stretched x

From: Julian Bradfield <jcb+unicode_at_inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 10:32:14 +0100

"Szelp, A. Sz." wrote:
>Julian, if you look closely, it is not actually a turned s, but something
>created with a turned s in mind. In the very sort of the alphabet, the
>regular s has equal (or near-equal) top and bottom bowls. the "turned" one
>has an emphasized upper bowl, which of course stems from the idea of a
>turned s (as some fonts have a larger bowl lower bowl of s for balance),
>but it is quite clearly not a turned s as identity, but rather something
>_inspired_ by a turned s.

Quite clearly wrong! I'm afraid you're suffering from optical delusion.
I actually thought the same when I first looked at it, but it's not
so.
Cut out the turned s; then cut out, say, the initial s of
"sonant". Rotate it 180 degrees. They're identical, up to the
tiny variations due to actual ink from metal type.
(Beware that the immediately below is from a different fount, and
*does* have more equal bowls. That's what confused me at first.)

Of course, since this was printed in the age of metal type, it *has*
to be a turned "s". Cutting a special type would cost far more, and as
David pointed out in his original post, the reason for the absurd
turned p and turned s was the the publishers weren't willing to cut
the extra types to match the letters in the original hand-written script.

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Fri Jun 08 2012 - 04:34:05 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jun 08 2012 - 04:34:06 CDT