I spotted this
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/kyryll-tkachev/kolyada/ which claims to have true italics, yet to my eye they are upright italics. What are 'true italics'? I always assumed the expression was used to differentiate from mechanical obliques, is that not true?
Comments
However, tomatoes are generally considered vegetables because of their cultural (rather than biological) function, being used in savory dishes.
By the same logic, as italics are generally used for contrast with roman/upright styles, any upright style, even if it can be argued that it is technically an italic, ain’t.
The phylogenetic categorization preferred to the taxonomic.
Calling this a true italic is provocative, drawing more attention to the structure of the face than the more obvious “upright italic”. A clever idea!
To be a true italic requires both a noticeable slant and correction of any distortions induced by obliquing. Most would also say that it requires structural changes—which are present in Kolyada, but without the slant.
My take: Structural change is arguably necessary, but certainly not sufficient, to create a true italic.
Kolyada has upright italic, I can see. Maybe even True Upright Italic, but it's funny not to include an italic after doing all the work but slanting.
“True” italics only makes sense in relation to classic old style faces.
When Frutiger was revised with “true” italics, that was nothing of the sort, really should have been termed “old style” italics.
(Stating that Aldus Manutius slanted letters is a gross oversimplification of facts, for instance.)
In the typographic field the definition for “italic” is pretty much as John Hudson explains above. Therefore “upright italic” is just as valid a term as “slanted roman”.
If any upright text which "functions as italics" (which emphasizes or contrasts), can be called "italic", then we can call bold text "italic" too. [Of course, this last remark is not true, if "function as italics" means that "other characteristic features of the informal scribal style are strongly present".]
The designer couldn’t be bothered to draw a slanted italic, so just did a few glyphs and otherwise repeated the roman.
Many fonts these days include such “schoolbook” alternates as a Stylistic Set.
Let's consider the end users of fonts. An "upright italic" font which ends up with an expert, is not a problem, when the expert knows the concept "upright italic". But what about an "upright italic" font which ends up with the general public? Imagine those millions of non-experts, who happen to use a word processor with an italic style link button. When they would click that button, and an "upright italic" font would appear — I bet most of them will be disappointed.
I find it odd that width and branching are considered the "go ahead" qualifiers for an italic moniker but slant is ignored. Just an ill informed calligrapher I guess... emoticon deleted!