Dutch IJ with dots

Are dots over Dutch IJ a local form of acute accents? An example is in the image below (Thanks, @Nina Stössinger), and it turns up a few more times in the flickr IJ group.
«1345

Comments

  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 847
    edited October 26
    I suspect the accent on "ij" is different than this, which is an attempt to mark it as a unit?
  • Ben BlomBen Blom Posts: 193

    I grew up a few kilometers from where that picture was taken, so I may respond.

    There shouldn’t be dots on a Dutch uppercase “IJ”. So the dots in the image are a mistake. All occurrences of dots on a Dutch uppercase “IJ” in the Flickr IJ group, are a mistake. Occurrences in the Flickr IJ group of a Dutch word that starts with the “Ij” uppercase-lowercase combination, are also a mistake.

  • @Ben Blom I find that all too hard-nose. To me an "IJ" that looks like a "U" is bigger mistake than using tittles to help readers; and something like "IJsbreker" is just plain too ugly. Some comments here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hardwig/5395384572/in/pool-ij/
  • John SavardJohn Savard Posts: 131
    I noticed that some of the lower-case ij occurrences looked like a (rounded) y, in addition to some of the upper-case ones looking like U. In any case, knowing that dots on the uppercase IJ are not considered correct in the Netherlands is useful information whether or not one has reason to feel the rule should be reconsidered.

    While, personally, I am content with the rule about dots on the upper-case IJ, being a Latin-alphabet user who is not a native-language speaker of Dutch, I don't take IJ quite as seriously as, say, Ы, and thus I am sympathetic to "Ijsbreker" instead of "IJsbreker". (But as I note in the next paragraph, what I want isn't what's important; what the Dutch people want is important.)

    As to the form that looks like a U: some of the examples pictured, indeed, are visually confusing, but with better font design involving a slightly larger gap in the character, the confusion could be avoided. Once that is done, an "IJsbreker" would look less ugly - if it is important to the Dutch that IJ be fully treated like a single letter, and not a mere ligature, that's one way to reinforce that.
  • "Ijsbreker" is plain wrong in Dutch.

    In case you wish to implement OpenType features for Dutch IJ and ij, do be aware the fi ligature might interfere with ij. See the Dutch word fijn (fine):
    http://www.high-logic.com/fontcreator/demo/language/


  • It is not uncommon to find a dotted ‘I’ (eye) in all caps (or small caps), see this thread on Flickr for more examples and comments. The dotted ‘I’ appears in lettering all over Europe, often in amateur/informal works, but also in more formal context. Such a dot doesn’t have a linguistic meaning, it can be seen as an embellishment or (unnecessary) distinguishing mark. It seems that for some letter makers, an ‘I’ simply needs to have a dot.
    And by extension, this applies to ‘IJ’, too (although in the image shown above, the plain ‘I’ strangely isn’t dotted). Some forms can be characterized as unicase/mixed case.


  • "Ijsbreker" is plain wrong in Dutch.
    Hopefully Dutch will keep evolving...
    Type designers are the front line of such things, and we can help by making "IJ" glyphs that look like a unit.
  • I don't know why lettering artists feel the need to place dots on IJ, but in everyday writing there's no confusion about IJ or ij. Words like IJmuiden don't cause any problems nor does JOHAN CRUIJFF.

    What the Dutch language really needs concerning ij is a unicode for J and j with acute.
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 847
    edited October 27
    What the Dutch language really needs concerning ij is a unicode for J and j with acute.
    Preferably where the accent helps unify the glyph. Some attempts in this notably rich discussion:
    http://www.typophile.com/node/34111
  • @Hrant H. Papazian You mean like this? (by Bold Monday, I believe)

    My own Ricardo has a similar option as a discretionary ligature.
  • Yes, to me that's a good one. The bottom-left "virtual" corner is doing two things right: it pulls the glyph away from a "U"; and the alignment makes it more unitary.
  • What the Dutch language really needs concerning ij is a unicode for J and j with acute.
    Preferably where the accent helps unify the glyph. Some attempts in this notably rich discussion:
    http://www.typophile.com/node/34111
    Well no, the acute is not for unifying i and j. In Dutch we use acutes when adding emphasis to a word. e.g. ‘Die is van míj!’ (That one is mine!) 
    In this case j would need an acute as wel.
  • It's that I feel a unifying acute would (generally) be better than two acutes.

    BTW it would be so awesome to see Dutch use the acute-for-emphasis much more. Like Armenian it would then be less dependent on Italics.
  • @Hrant H. Papazian You mean like this? (by Bold Monday, I believe)

    My own Ricardo has a similar option as a discretionary ligature.

    For what it is worth:

    a) As far as I know this is a custom font developed for the Rijksmuseum.

    b) 99.999% of the Dutch doesn't use the IJ ligature, probably 0,001%  know it exist.
    It is just "ij" and "IJ" in real life. 
  • Laurenz van Gaalen said:
    probably 0,001%  know it exist. 
    Is it really that bad? Sad.
  • Yes, it's that bad*. I've only discovered it's very existense since I'm learning how to make a font. I really don't know anyone who use it, yet alone knows it. I'm a graphical designer for 20+ years now. But maybe I've a blind spot? Or Maybe some heavy typographic oriented designers know about it?

    * Bad is relative. Dutch is a 'living' language that's constantly evolving. It's maybe sad that a nice glyph is not used. But thats from a typophile perspective.
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 847
    edited November 4
    @Laurenz van Gaalen It's bad from the perspective of anybody who believes that complexity can enrich.
  • @Hrant H. Papazian True. To be sure: I don't mean any negative with the word 'typophile'
  • Vasil StanevVasil Stanev Posts: 32
    edited November 5
    Friends, I am very happy to have come upon this thread, because I happen to just currently develop a font that tries to include all this richness. :) I was unaware of Latin localisation, but now my font features plenty of it:

    1. If you see something wrong with the design and/or the names, please let me and Stefan (https://localfonts.eu) know. :)

    2. I would like to use the thread B) to ask about the Polish ew-ew ligature - should it be named lslash_lslash?

    ALSO,
    3. are there words in Dutch or other languages that have in them a /g followed by an /jacute? In my font gj collide a bit so I will need a j.alt - I want to know if I will also need a jacute.alt 
  • 3. As far as I know there's no usage of /jacute on its own in Dutch. But theoretically it is viable to use /acutes on the ij and IJ. 
  • Vasil StanevVasil Stanev Posts: 32
    edited November 5
    @Laurenz van Gaalen
    4. Should the UC IJ have two acutes or one. If only one, on which letter? I? Or J?
    5. Should same rule apply to smallcaps?
    @all:
    6. Is Jcircumflex and jcircumflex used anywhere besides Esperanto? Do I need a jcircumflex.alt? Are there other local modification on this letter that? Jtilde? Jcaron? jgrave? Please elaborate.
    Thanks in advance!
  • I'm not sure, I'm just theory-crafting. The acute is used to alter the way you pronounce a word an/or add emphasis.

    een hond = a dog
    één hond = one dog
    dé hond = the dog, with emphasis on the

    In theory you may add emphasis to the ij. But since there's no font that support it (as far as I know), it's never used. But I'm not a professor in Dutch language, so I coult be wrong... but if possible — or in handwriting — I would add the acute to both i and j.


  • Kent LewKent Lew Posts: 649
    There are a few fonts these days that attempt to support ij with acute. These generally feature two acutes.

    There are various ways to do this. See this thread: http://typedrawers.com/discussion/1294/how-do-you-implement-ijacute-and-ijacute

  • @Laurenz van Gaalen
    4. Should the UC IJ have two acutes or one. If only one, on which letter? I? Or J?
    5. Should same rule apply to smallcaps?
    4: One spanning both.
    5: Yes.
    (I'm not Laurenz, or even Dutch, but one doesn't have to be.)
  • I think it should be one 'spanning both' in case of the ij or IJ ligature, but two if the ij is composed out of an i and j
  • I think it should be one 'spanning both' in case of the ij or IJ ligature, but two if the ij is composed out of an i and j
    I don't know about that. It looks pretty natural to me with two acutes.

  • It's intriguing. So I've asked a doctorandus Dutch: it's the convention to add emphasis on an ij like this: íj. So no /jacute at all.
  • Isn't that just a matter of /jacute not being available?
  • Hm, I don't think so.
    Emphasis on the word moet is also móet, not móét.

    Some real life examples by 'professional media':

    https://www.dvhn.nl/drenthe/Drenthe-is-niet-míjn-fietsvoorbeeld-22159971.html
    https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/opmerkelijk/vrouw-vindt-dubbelganger-oh-my-god-dat-mijn-gezicht

    To be clear: I'm now discussing the combination i + j, not the ligature (wich, as statet previously, almost no one use, so I don't have real life experience with it nor do I have examples).
Sign In or Register to comment.