Just casting about, I am seeing what seems like a fairly even distribution of interpretations of the Cyrillic lowercase shha (һ) U+04BB in fonts that support extended Cyrillic — some are basically a reduced, x-height form of the capital Shha (Һ), while others are a duplication of the Latin h.
This letter is part of several Cyrillic-based orthographies: some Turkic languages and some Mongolian ones.
What drives these two different forms? Are there some orthographies where an ascending glyph harmonizes better than in others? (Given the paucity of ascenders in Cyrillic script overall, the h form seems generally a less comfortable fit, to my eye.)
Are there local preferences in some traditions that lean toward one form over the other?
0
Comments
No perspectives or insights on this? Anyone?
It was almost always the ascending h style. From looking at fonts that include һ or h, there seems to be no pattern. I think the ascending form looks better in context, especially in condensed heavy weights. I'm interested in hearing more about this mysterious character.
Anyway, the x-height һ is being adopted in recent releases which seems based on good research – revised system fonts on Mac and Windows, and releases from quality designers, as FF DIN Pro, Iskra and Wayfinding. So the doubt remains.
I will try to dig some native speakers of the languages using һ and get safer information. By now, the better I could get is this MyFonts search where one can also note that һ, ԧ, and ћ aren't related in fonts with the x-height һ.
James — Did Maxim consult on those extensions, by any chance?
Igor — The presence of the x-height һ in more recent and presumably well-researched designs is what makes me wonder. Especially since, as you point out, this is contrary to most ParaType fonts employing the Latin h form.
Please let us know if you get any input from native speakers from any of the relevant languages.
Native script users, but not necessarily speakers of the languages that use extended Cyrillic characters such as һ. So this could be like asking a native English speaker how to design ß.
Not that I don’t have plenty of respect for Maria, Krista, and Ksenya, and I would welcome their perspectives. Thanks for the reminder. I know Ksenya and will reach out to her by e-mail. But I’m not on Twitter or elsewhere (for better or worse).
I am, believe it or not, rather shy and reluctant about “cold calling” people I don’t feel like I know in some way. It’s much more comfortable for me to post such questions generally on a public forum.
But you’re right, for specialized insight like this, it may be more productive to find other individuals to contact directly.
I’ve emailed Ksenya (whom I know somewhat) and hope to hear a reply.
If @Krista Radoeva happens to be around, I would very much appreciate her perspective as well. I don’t think that Maria Doreuli is on this forum.
To the best of my knowledge the Һһ belongs only to alphabets of Bashkir, Buryat, Kalmyk, Kazakh, Kildin Sami, Tatar, and Yakut (Sakha). Plus the [former] Cyrillic orthographies of Azerbaijani, Uyghur, and Kurdish, which I believe all officially use other scripts now.
So I asked them about it and they responded with this: "According to the developer, ‘It's not a contextual alternate. It's a Character Variant and a person would have to select it to use it. It was requested for two languages in Azerbaijan, where some people wanted it in that style.’ "
I have been unable to find any reference which indicates the x-height variant is preferred in a particular language so it appears to me this has to be considered a personal preference until further evidence surfaces. It isn't that difficult to include both versions in fonts going forward.
So, unfortunately, that doesn’t provide any practical answer. But thank you for joining the conversation.
André
I'm afraid that the situation with the shha (uni04BB) is the same. I'm not convinced that the choise of Paratype is correct. Look at uni04B6, uni04B7, uni04B8, uni04B9, uni04BA. All these glyphs are based on Cyrillic Che (uni0427), che (uni0447). So it's strange the lowercase shha (uni04BB) to be based on the Latin lowercase "h". But the distribution of the PT Astra can turn what seems illogical into a rule. Meanwhile, look in the font Roboto where the shha (uni04BB) is drawn precisely from the logic I describe (in connection with uni0447 - lowercase che). That's why I argue that the right decision is in Roboto, but the final winner will be probably PT Astra (because this family must replace Times New Roman and Arial in Russian written communication). It's why I said in my previous post that "repetition of a language error leads to the formulation of a rule that normalizes it as a norm".
Sorry, but I’m unclear about the word “must” above — how do we know that PT Astra will come to replace TNR?
However, my question still remains: Even if Astra Linux uses PT Astra Serif in place of TNR, does this necessarily guarantee that this will become the “new normal” for Cyrillic typesetting in Russia? Will existing Windows users in Russia not continue to use TNR? And it sounds like Rosa Linux will be using Libre Serif in place of Times. If sanctions continue for a significant period then there is a possibility that the Russian government might switch from recommending TNR to PT Astra Serif, but I don’t see this as fait accompli.
André
[edit: of course, since TNR also uses the h-like shha, this probably doesn’t matter with respect to the issue under discussion].
What I mean is: in all likelihood a new sort was not cut for the need initially — either a Latin 'h' was pressed into service, or a 'ч' was rotated in the line.
Also, I have tried to find examples of handwriting in any of these languages, so see what users use when not relying on prefabricated letters, but without success.
So...
The answer should be... use a 'h'... to stay in accordance with what Unicode 10 prescribe...
But honestly, I’m unclear which form you are advocating for. Is it your view that the ‘h’ form is too Latinized and a turned ‘ч’ harmonizes better with the rest of Cyrillic script? Or would you favor the ‘h’ form because it introduces more differentiation with its ascender?
Care to take a stand?