You are right, the s-acute just below it confused me. -- Szelp, André Szabolcs
+43 (650) 79 22 400 On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Julian Bradfield <[email protected]>wrote: > "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 ś 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. > >
