At 06:15 PM 3/20/02 -0500, John Cowan wrote: >Asmus Freytag scripsit: > > > Since Latin majuscules predate the mediaeval manuscripts from which the > > Fraktur forms were evolved this analogy is seriously backwards. Antiqua is > > not a simplification of Fraktur, but Fraktur capitals are embellished > > versions of handwritten forms based on Latin majuscules. > >Sure, diachronically. But I was making a synchronic distinction between >plain and gussied-up.
Not that simple, even. Some of the base forms of the 'backbone' of Fraktur capitals are topologically different from the Roman letters. For example, a true Fraktur A is not a triangle with raised base, but looks like a squarish U with the top part of the left leg pinched against the right one, preserving a narro opening between the two legs. In other words, that form is not merely an embellished form, but verges on a different base shape - that's why neglecting the evolution of the shapes should not be glossed over so easily. Now, we are all familiar with embellished black-letter forms that do look more like systematic embellishments of Latin majuscules. I suspect, although unable to prove this suspicion, that such forms are a later invention for audiences lacking long familiarity with true Fraktur, and seeking to create a general 'old-fashioned' feel, without compromising legibility by modern audiences. In German newspaper names, the letter A is frequently used, starting a number of words that are common building blocks of such names. I cannot recall having seen the pinched "U" shape for the letter A in any of them, which I attribute to the need for newspapers to have easily readable names, even if convention requires a Fraktur style font for their name. A./
