Re: Latin chi and stretched x

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
<jcb+unicode_at_inf.ed.ac.uk>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.
>
>