Old typefaces - request
Henry Tickner
as late eighteenth century - long esses, plenty of ligatures, that sort
of thing.
I would also appreciate some guidance on when to use the tall and short
forms of the letter S.
Directions to appropriate sites may be e-mailed to me - I will post a
summary.
TIA
--
Henry Tickner
Andre G Isaak
Henry Tickner <ne...@boudoir.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>For a small poster and handbill, I want to find a font which could pass
>as late eighteenth century - long esses, plenty of ligatures, that sort
>of thing.
>
>I would also appreciate some guidance on when to use the tall and short
>forms of the letter S.
You could try Adobe Caslon. It's a rather modernised interpretation of an
18th C design, but it would probably still work for your purposes, and there
is an alternates set available which includes a long S, long S ligatures, and
ct/st ligatures.
Generally, long S is used everywhere except in word-final position, but I have
run across texts in which regular s will follow long S even if not word-final
(in a word like miSsion, for example).
Andre
[posted and mailed]
--
Andre G Isaak agi...@linguist.umass.edu
Department of Linguistics (413) 586-8949 (Res)
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Tiro Typeworks
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:41:26 +0000, Henry Tickner
<ne...@boudoir.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>For a small poster and handbill, I want to find a font which could pass
>as late eighteenth century - long esses, plenty of ligatures, that sort
>of thing.
The new ITC Founder's Caslon might suit you nicely. It is based on
Caslon's original 18th C. cutting of his famous types, and maintains
much of roughness and quirkiness of the metal type without looking
artificially 'antiqued'. See
>I would also appreciate some guidance on when to use the tall and short
>forms of the letter S.
The long s is used at the beginning of and within words. The short s
is used at the ends of words and as the second letter in a double s
combination. E.g. (f=long s)
filky = silky
Shakefpeare = Shakespeare
flaves - slaves
mifsal = missal
John Hudson, Type Director
Tiro Typeworks
Vancouver, BC
ti...@tiro.com
www.tiro.com
Keith Rhodes
> The long s is used at the beginning of and within words. The short s
> is used at the ends of words and as the second letter in a double s
> combination. E.g. (f=long s)
>
> filky = silky
> Shakefpeare = Shakespeare
> flaves - slaves
> mifsal = missal
>
> John Hudson, Type Director
>
The examples John gives are good. As is his explanation. The long s
followed by the
"short" s is the origin (I believe) of the "Scharfesesse" (German Double S)
symbol.
Any Germanophiles care to confirm/repudiate this?
Keith.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keith Rhodes, sent from loxley the Linux box
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Christoph Nahr
<klrh...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
>The examples John gives are good. As is his explanation. The long s
>followed by the
>"short" s is the origin (I believe) of the "Scharfesesse" (German Double S)
>symbol.
>
>Any Germanophiles care to confirm/repudiate this?
NO NO NO NOT AGAIN!!!
Sorry, just a nervous breakdown. Who the hell invented this fairy
tale that the "Scharfes S" or "Ess-Zet" is a "double s"!? It's called
"Ess-Zet" because it's just that: a ligature of two Fraktur letters,
long s and z. If you go to your nearest library and look through a
few centuries of books typeset in Fraktur then you'll see how the two
letters approach each other until they form the familiar "ß" shape.
And if you look at an etymological dictionary you'll see that middle
high German had that peculiar Fraktur z where modern German has "ß".
The transcription "ß" => "ss" (for typewriters or in some German
handwriting) is a recent invention, and e.g. the Bundeswehr has not
yet adopted it (they write "ß" as "sz" for telegraph transmissions).
--
Chris Nahr (cnahr@ibmnet, insert dot after ibm to reply by e-mail)
Please don't e-mail me if you post! PGP key at wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net
Christoph Coen
is really a ligature of (long) s + z, or of (long) s + (short) s.
The latter view (a "fairy tale", according to Christoph Nahr) is, in
fact, favoured by the eminent typographer Jan Tschichold. He writes
(Meisterbuch der Schrift, 2nd edition, Ravensburg 1965, pp. 42-45) that
the ß only looks like a ligature of (long) s and z in blackletter but
that, if you imagine a long and a short s in blackletter and mentally
telescope them, you are left with the right half of the short s which,
to the unwary, just looks like a z ("wenn man sie sich
ineinandergeschoben vorstellt, so bleibt vom s nur noch die rechte,
z-ähnliche Hälfte übrig. Daß das gar kein z ist, hat man im Laufe der
Jahrhunderte vergessen.") It sounds perhaps a little weird, but
Tschichold has some illustrations which make his claim look fairly
plausible. On Tschichold's theory, the right half of a properly
designed ß in a roman or italic font should look like an s, not like a
beta or a 3 (the ß of Arial, for example, passes this test, while that
of Times New Roman fails). I don't know of any explicit statements by
other well-known font designers, but if you look at fonts designed by
Hermann Zapf and Adrian Frutiger, to name but two, they seem to have
subscribed to the same theory. Sauthoff, Wendt and Willberg (in their
book Schriften erkennen, 6th ed., Mainz 1997, p. 9) also say that the ß
is often drawn incorrectly because its origin is misunderstood, and that
it is a ligature consisting of a long s and a short s whose visible rest
could be read as a z ("dessen sichtbarer Rest als z gelesen werden
könnte").
On the other hand, according to the famous dictionary of the German
language by the Grimm brothers (vol. 8, Leipzig 1893 and definitely not
a fairy tale), the sharp s sound used to be written as "z" in German and
therefore the ß is a combination of s and z. The earlier lexicographer,
Johann Christoph Adelung (Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der
Hochdeutschen Mundart, part 3, Leipzig 1798), however, pointed out that
spelling in early German was never very consistent and that ß was really
no more than a double s.
Personally, I also tend to favour Tschichold's view. For one thing,
when long s was in widespread use, the ß was routinely used to render
double s in languages such as Latin or English, so it's hard to see why
it should be an sz-ligature in German. Moreover, as a matter of
personal aesthetics, I find the Tschichold version of the ß more
pleasing than the Times New Roman version. On the other hand, it would
be even more preferable, in my view, to get rid of the ß altogether, as
the more practical Swiss have done, since it does not increase
legibility and leads to many spelling mistakes. As the long s on its
own is no longer in practical use today, it also makes no sense to use
it in a ligature.
As for the long s itself, the Duden (the semi-official German
dictionary), in its section on typesetting, has some fairly complicated
rules for its use. Basically, you are not to use it at the end of a
word, but only at the beginning of a syllable, and in combinations such
as "sch", "sp" and "st". Thus, it's Transaktion (with short s) but
Transit (with long s) and transpirieren (also with long s). Dienstag,
on the other hand, is to be spelled with short s.
Christoph Coen
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
(coen...@ruf.uni-freiburg.de)
Christoph Nahr
<coen...@ruf.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>The latter view (a "fairy tale", according to Christoph Nahr) is, in
>fact, favoured by the eminent typographer Jan Tschichold. He writes
>(Meisterbuch der Schrift, 2nd edition, Ravensburg 1965, pp. 42-45) that
>the ß only looks like a ligature of (long) s and z in blackletter but
>that, if you imagine a long and a short s in blackletter and mentally
>telescope them, you are left with the right half of the short s which,
>to the unwary, just looks like a z
Sorry, but this is just far out. Imagine a blackletter long s + z,
and they look *exactly* like an ß... without any fantasies about
cutting away half a letter. I'm sure that you could twist and cut any
letter to look *roughly* like the right half of the ß, so why stop
with the round s? Maybe ß is really a long s + capital X ligature?!
Anyway, when we're talking about what ß "really" is then we'll have to
look at history rather than use our imagination. I've seen books
typeset in blackletter from Gutenberg's time to late 19th century, and
the ß never looks anything like long s + short s. It always looks
like long s + z, as compared to these letters of the same print.
Often the two halves are not only similar but *identical* to single
long s's and z's, resp. The opinions of all typeface designers of the
world do not change that fact.
>On the other hand, according to the famous dictionary of the German
>language by the Grimm brothers (vol. 8, Leipzig 1893 and definitely not
>a fairy tale), the sharp s sound used to be written as "z" in German and
>therefore the ß is a combination of s and z.
Correct. This is indeed the lineage of the sharp s.
>The earlier lexicographer,
>Johann Christoph Adelung (Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der
>Hochdeutschen Mundart, part 3, Leipzig 1798), however, pointed out that
>spelling in early German was never very consistent and that ß was really
>no more than a double s.
Ridiculous. Double consonants shorten the preceding vowel. If you
look at words with a sharp s you'll notice that the preceding vowels
tend to be long, not short. In fact, this is supposed to get
straightened out with the spelling reform: ß only after long vowels,
ss only after short ones.
This alone (the current situation, not the reform proposal) is quite
enough to demonstrate that ß cannot possibly have come about as a
double s ligature. Unless you choose to believe that somewhere in the
past, the German language mysteriously deviated from all other
European languages and decided that some vowels preceding a double
consonant should be long.
>Personally, I also tend to favour Tschichold's view. For one thing,
>when long s was in widespread use, the ß was routinely used to render
>double s in languages such as Latin or English, so it's hard to see why
>it should be an sz-ligature in German.
While I'm not sure about that I can think of a fairly simple reason
for the ss transcription in non-German languages: these languages lack
the ancient German tradition of the z variant with a "sharp s" sound.
Their z sounds are soft, not sharp. Writing sz for a sharp s sound
would be very confusing to them.
>Moreover, as a matter of
>personal aesthetics, I find the Tschichold version of the ß more
>pleasing than the Times New Roman version.
Aesthetics are debatable, of course. For *modern* renditions of ß,
one might argue (while accepting my line of history) that the
blackletter z part has no place in an Antiqua font, and therefore
should be replaced by a short s. That would be perfectly reasonable,
especially since memory of Middle High German's "sharp s" z character
has completely faded by now.
>On the other hand, it would
>be even more preferable, in my view, to get rid of the ß altogether, as
>the more practical Swiss have done, since it does not increase
>legibility and leads to many spelling mistakes. As the long s on its
>own is no longer in practical use today, it also makes no sense to use
>it in a ligature.
I dislike the Swiss alternative because it results in the added
complexity that some vowels preceding a double s might be short while
others might be long (what's the meaning of "Masse"?). The proposed
spelling reform is a much better solution IMO because it offers a
consistent relationship of pronunciation and spelling.
Dave Fawthrop
In article <36d329bc...@news1.newscene.com>, Christoph Nahr (cn...@seemysig.invalid) writes:
>On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:00:13 +0100, Keith Rhodes
><klrh...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
>
>>The examples John gives are good. As is his explanation. The long s
>>followed by the
>>"short" s is the origin (I believe) of the "Scharfesesse" (German Double S)
>>symbol.
>>
>>Any Germanophiles care to confirm/repudiate this?
>
>NO NO NO NOT AGAIN!!!
>
>Sorry, just a nervous breakdown. Who the hell invented this fairy
>tale that the "Scharfes S" or "Ess-Zet" is a "double s"!? It's called
>"Ess-Zet" because it's just that: a ligature of two Fraktur letters,
>long s and z. If you go to your nearest library and look through a
>few centuries of books typeset in Fraktur then you'll see how the two
>letters approach each other until they form the familiar "ß" shape.
>And if you look at an etymological dictionary you'll see that middle
>high German had that peculiar Fraktur z where modern German has "ß".
>The transcription "ß" => "ss" (for typewriters or in some German
>handwriting) is a recent invention, and e.g. the Bundeswehr has not
>yet adopted it (they write "ß" as "sz" for telegraph transmissions).
Sorry Chris you are wrong on this point :-(
The German eszett is equivalent to a double s.
It only occurs as a lower case letter, and when the word appears in
uppercase the eszett becomes 'SS'. Interestingly the Swiss very
rarely use the eszett but always use 'ss'.
We have had this explanation in the comments for the German
versions of Hyphenologist for about 14 years, during which time we
have sold to *many* German companies. The Germans being German
would have shouted very loudly had we been wrong.
I could look up my old and new DUDEN, but my German is not up to
translating things for fun.
-- Dave Fawthrop <hyp...@c-h.win-uk.net> <http://www.win-uk.net/~hyphen>
Computer Hyphenation Ltd, Hyphen House, 8 Cooper Grove, Halifax HX3 7RF, UK
Tel/Fax/Answer +44 (0)1274 691092.
Hyphenologist is sold as C source code and splits 50 languages.
Wordlist FAQ at http://www.win-uk.net/~hyphen/wordlist.html
VDU Glasses at http://www.win-uk.net/~hyphen/vduglasses.html
Ralph Hancock
Dave Fawthrop wrote in message <27...@c-h.win-uk.net>...
>>The transcription "ß" => "ss" (for typewriters or in some German
>>handwriting) is a recent invention, and e.g. the Bundeswehr has not
>>yet adopted it (they write "ß" as "sz" for telegraph transmissions).
>
>Sorry Chris you are wrong on this point :-(
>
>The German eszett is equivalent to a double s.
>
The actual 'ß' sign is quite old, having been used for 'ss' (or rather, long
s + short s) in the handwriting of the Italian Renaissance. I think its
adoption to represent the Fraktur esszett is fairly recent, though, probably
in the early decades of this century.
Ralph Hancock
<han...@dircon.co.uk>
<http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~hancock>
Christoph Nahr
Fawthrop) wrote:
>The German eszett is equivalent to a double s.
*Only* in contemporary print. As I hope you realise, eszett is *not*
equivalent to a double s in terms of pronunciation -- if it were it
would shorten preceding vowels which it does *not* do. Nor is it
equivalent to a double s in the way it came about as a printed letter.
And when and why do you think was this letter called "eszett"?
>It only occurs as a lower case letter, and when the word appears in
>uppercase the eszett becomes 'SS'.
I'm not sure about this point but I *think* I've seen transcriptions
where "ß" became "SZ" in the upper-case transcription. Anyway, such
capitalisations are rare. As I'm sure you know Fraktur / Blackletter
print (which is where the "ß" ligature originated) does not use
capitalised words, and there are no German words that start with "ß".
So the uppercase transcription is certain to be a recent invention; it
could only come about after German printers had adopted Antiqua.
>Interestingly the Swiss very
>rarely use the eszett but always use 'ss'.
Another very recent event. Personally, I would also use "ss" as a
transcription for "ß" -- because it's easier to understand for people
who don't know about the Middle High German "sharp s" letter! But
this fact is unrelated to the *history* of the letter "ß".
>We have had this explanation in the comments for the German
>versions of Hyphenologist for about 14 years, during which time we
>have sold to *many* German companies. The Germans being German
>would have shouted very loudly had we been wrong.
No offense, but are you sure that many Germans even read your
explanations? Even if they had realised / assumed it was wrong are
you sure they would have bothered to write you?
>I could look up my old and new DUDEN, but my German is not up to
>translating things for fun.
As far as I can see, the Duden simply recommends using "ss" if an "ß"
is unavailable. This is a prudent recommendation but no comment on
the history of this letter.
Christoph Nahr
<han...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>The actual 'ß' sign is quite old, having been used for 'ss' (or rather, long
>s + short s) in the handwriting of the Italian Renaissance. I think its
>adoption to represent the Fraktur esszett is fairly recent, though, probably
>in the early decades of this century.
Are you saying that the printers who adopted the Fraktur eszett for
Antiqua typefaces had been looking at Renaissance handwritings rather
than their own recent Fraktur prints? Do you have any sources for
that claim? I must admit that it sounds rather far-fetched to me.
As for when this adoption took place, I'm not sure about it either but
looking at my book shelf I find an 1855 Antiqua print where the eszett
is rendered as double-s, and prints from 1908 and later which have an
Antiqua rendition of the esszett. So the adoption most likely
happened in the second half of the 19th century.
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>As for when this adoption took place, I'm not sure about it either but
>looking at my book shelf I find an 1855 Antiqua print where the eszett
>is rendered as double-s, and prints from 1908 and later which have an
>Antiqua rendition of the esszett. So the adoption most likely
>happened in the second half of the 19th century.
Here's another date: Carl Faulmann, "Schriftzeichen und Alphabete
aller Zeiten und Völker", Wien 1880, still has the "ss" transcription
instead of eszett.
Faulmann says some interesting stuff, too. Pages 226-227 show
alphabets of Middle High German and New High German, resp. The MHG
table lists both the Antiqua-looking "z" (pronunciation: dz) and the
Fraktur-looking "z" (pronunciation: [sharp] s).
Faulmann's commentary (p.226): "[Fraktur-looking z] hat den scharfen
s-Laut, der sich im Neuhochdeutsch als [Fraktur-ß] erhielt, aber auch
in s übergegangen ist, z. B. da[Fraktur-looking z]." He continues
with guidelines to determine whether Fraktur-looking z or
Antiqua-looking z was intended when a given scripture uses only one
glyph (either Fraktur or Antiqua style) for both letters.
On the next page, he says that in New High German the sharp s is
written as double s after short vowels and as the sz ligature after
long vowels whereas Latin script (= Antiqua) always uses double s.
This comment pertains to the sound value "sharp s", however, rather
than the Middle High German letter.
Dave Nalle
<ne...@boudoir.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> For a small poster and handbill, I want to find a font which could pass
> as late eighteenth century - long esses, plenty of ligatures, that sort
> of thing.
>
> I would also appreciate some guidance on when to use the tall and short
> forms of the letter S.
>
> Directions to appropriate sites may be e-mailed to me - I will post a
> summary.
Take a look at http://www.ragnarokpress.com/scriptorium/masterfonts -
particularly Boswell and Cochin Archaic which fit the period and
characteristics you're looking for.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I write both as an individual and as a company representative
Scriptorium Fonts & Art: http://ragnarokpress.com/scriptorium
Oroborus Universal Roleplaying: http://www.oroborus.net