From: Andrew West (andrewcwest@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 11 2010 - 17:21:15 CST
On 11 March 2010 17:58, philip chastney <philip_chastney@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> as far as English goes, I normally expect to see (e.g) "princess"
> in certain contexts, I would not be surprised to see "princeſs"
> I would never, in my wildest nightmares, expect to see "princeß"
I can't imagine why not -- it is common enough in italic text in 16th
and 17th century English printed books, e.g.
<http://www.babelstone.co.uk/Blog/Images/TrueCopie_1585_AII.jpg>
<http://www.babelstone.co.uk/Blog/Images/Micrographia.jpg>
As the ß-form ligature normally only occurs in italic text, and in
roman text the same word is normally written using either a ligatured
ſſ medially or an unligatured ſs finally, I would agree with David
that what looks like ß in English (French, Italian, etc.) should best
be represented as an ſs ligature (I would use ſ-ZWJ-s to indicate to
the font that a ligature is required), and that way a suitably
designed italic font would use a ß-glyph whereas a roman font would
not. Of course, in practice there probably aren't any fonts that
currently do this, but, in my opinion, if you are recording texts then
you should do what is correct even if the fonts currently available do
not render the results as desired.
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 11 2010 - 17:25:55 CST
