At least in English, the apostrophe is used for the possessive, thus: any letter/apostrophe/s. Also s/apostrophe/space (or other punctuation mark) for plural possessives.
Am I the only one who just does: /quoteright a/quoteright b/quoteright c/quoteright d/quoteright e/quoteright f/quoteright g/quoteright h/quoteright i/quoteright j/quoteright k/quoteright l/quoteright m/quoteright n/quoteright o/quoteright p/quoteright q/quoteright r/quoteright s/quoteright t/quoteright u/quoteright v/quoteright w/quoteright x/quoteright y/quoteright z/quoteright
o'clock. But yes, this is probably a case where making it work for all letters and numbers is easier than trying to assemble an exhaustive list of potential strings.
But yes, this is probably a case where making it work for all letters
and numbers is easier than trying to assemble an exhaustive list of
potential strings.
Especially since there are typographic traditions that actually use the quoteright (and quotedblright) as opening quotation marks — including some Scandinavian languages, I believe.
That said, it never hurts to have some common real-word contexts for evaluating. Abstract strings sometimes give different impressions from real words.
Am I the only one who just does: /quoteright a/quoteright b/quoteright c/quoteright d/quoteright e/quoteright f/quoteright g/quoteright h/quoteright i/quoteright j/quoteright k/quoteright l/quoteright m/quoteright n/quoteright o/quoteright p/quoteright q/quoteright r/quoteright s/quoteright t/quoteright u/quoteright v/quoteright w/quoteright x/quoteright y/quoteright z/quoteright
and so on?
I do that, but it is always useful to see the character combinations in context. That way it is easier to see where you need to do kerning. Triplets are in some cases a thing to consider with quoteright
In French it can be every letter on the right side, caps accented or otherwise.
You might be able to do some cherry-picking on the left handside, but not worth it imo.
Specially considering that apostrophe was used much more in the middle of words until ~XVIII century. Even today you might use such phrasing to sound quaint. I'd just kern every letter combination.
Am I the only one who just does: /quoteright a/quoteright b/quoteright c/quoteright d/quoteright e/quoteright f/quoteright g/quoteright h/quoteright i/quoteright j/quoteright k/quoteright l/quoteright m/quoteright n/quoteright o/quoteright p/quoteright q/quoteright r/quoteright s/quoteright t/quoteright u/quoteright v/quoteright w/quoteright x/quoteright y/quoteright z/quoteright
and so on?
In my research I've also come across these possible combinations for quotes (rather than apostrophe use):
Hopefully one day 6/∂ quotes will catch on, since avoiding confusion with the apostrophe is a Good Thing. Of course then we'd have to kern against ∂ as well...
How would that be operationalized, Hrant? Repurpose the former /apostrophe “dumb typewriter vertical apostrophe” slot to look like the old single left curly quote?
No, I would leave the apostrophe alone, and have close quotes be h-mirrors of conventional open quotes (something I've done in my old Cristaal font). Some designs (most notably by Carter, and Licko) v-flip the open quotes instead, but besides not helping with the apostrophe confusion it's more jarring; in my scheme a quoted passage starts out normally, and the reader is expecting it to somehow close eventually, making an unconventional closing less jarring.
Leave the apostrophe as-is, and make all the closing quotes point up instead (like the top example in that tweet). Unicode has a separate apostrophe code point, which should naturally be used for an apostrophe, instead of using the single close quote.
OK, but traditionally the apostrophe code point is used for a “dumb” typewriter-style glyph. So part of your proposal needs to be to turn that into a proper typographic, directional apostrophe, as I mentioned originally. (Unless you prefer the "dumb" style.)
Hrant, I agree with your self-quote insofar as that guillemets are the best choice. The nice thing is that they are already supported everywhere. I think it doesn't make too much sense to worry about designing new high and/or low quotes when a superior solution is already available.
Not everybody is going to like the change, of course, but the same will be true about any redesigned high/low quotes (including your droopy-eyed design). Perhaps you could call them «metric quotes» and bundle them up with the much-overdue switch to SI units.
Many people claim using guillemets in English is grammatically wrong. Only type designers claim upward closing quotes are wrong. :-)
What should tickle the fancy of type designers however is that guillemets are much easier to kern... So maybe the obscure compromise of –what I call– quotemets* would be ideal. :->
Comments
L’Arre L’arre L’erre L’œve
and contextual combo list.
1) List by "latn" script;
2) Download language's .zip file;
3) Search through the file "word.txt".
For example, English (Great Britain) has 941 instances with the apostrophe.
Rock ’n’ Roll!
English: ’cause ’cos ’em ’gainst ’fraid ’mongst ’nother ’tude ’zine ’twill
Deutsch: ’naus ’nauf ’nunter ’nüber ’nen
Dutch: ’s-Hertogenbosch ’s-Gravenhage
Italian: ’nduja ’ndrangheta
and so on?
But yes, this is probably a case where making it work for all letters and numbers is easier than trying to assemble an exhaustive list of potential strings.
Sadly, in real world usage, they are often exchanged for one another.
That said, it never hurts to have some common real-word contexts for evaluating. Abstract strings sometimes give different impressions from real words.
You might be able to do some cherry-picking on the left handside, but not worth it imo.
Specially considering that apostrophe was used much more in the middle of words until ~XVIII century. Even today you might use such phrasing to sound quaint. I'd just kern every letter combination.
Anyway, here's a reference:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe_(typographie)#En_fran.C3.A7ais
The article also states: "it's in French that the apostrophe occurs most frequently."
@Hrant H. Papazian What do you mean? Supported by different software?
/quoteleft/letter/quoteright /quoteleft/letter/quoteleft /quoteright/letter/quoteright /quotesinglbase/letter/quoteright /quotesinglbase/letter/quoteleft /quotesingle/letter/quotesingle
i.e:
If I'm being thorough I also take care to try proof every letter to between every other letter with an apostrophe between.
Or is that not your question?
What's your solution for that if not to make use of an alternative apostrophe character as well?
> Unless you prefer the "dumb" style.
Not often but sometimes I do.
Not everybody is going to like the change, of course, but the same will be true about any redesigned high/low quotes (including your droopy-eyed design). Perhaps you could call them «metric quotes» and bundle them up with the much-overdue switch to SI units.
What should tickle the fancy of type designers however is that guillemets are much easier to kern... So maybe the obscure compromise of –what I call– quotemets* would be ideal. :->
* http://www.typophile.com/node/20061#comment-124405