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./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Mar 20 2002 - 23:55:41 EST