Proofreaders needed for a tutorial on extending a Latin set

Vasil Stanev
Vasil Stanev Posts: 775
in Technique and Theory
Hello friends,
I pet project I though long about making is finally accomplished. Your opinions and remarks are greatly appreciated.

Comments

  • Simon Cozens
    Simon Cozens Posts: 741
    Preface
    • "extension of a Basic Latin glyph set in the various" should be "with".
    • That first sentence is way too long anyway; consider splitting (1) after "best familiar with", using a colon:
    • It has been my desire for some time to lay into print the rules, principles and suggestions of the typographic process with which I am best familiar: namely, the extension of a Basic Latin glyph set...
      (2) at "and which allows":

      ...what is commonly called “Extended Latin”. Doing this will allow the font..

    • Second sentence, "extention" should be "extension". (Or at least be consistent throughout.)
    • This sentence
      ; since then, many more fonts of all shapes and sizes have become polyglots thanks to my aid.
      is split with a semicolon when I copy and paste (which is correct) but with a comma in the PDF, which makes it a run on sentence. Also "thanks to my aid" sounds rather self-congratulatory in English. Maybe replace with "since then, I have helped many..."
    • 2nd graf, first sentence, "magisterial" is probably the wrong word. "discipline", perhaps?
    • 2nd graf, 2nd sentence, "would require" -> "requires". Simpler is better.
    • 3rd sentence, "him or her his or her" is clumsy.
    • p2, first graf, 1st sentence, "...hopefully, much later once they have achieved mastery," punctuation is wrong. Try reading it aloud with the commas as pauses, and see where the stress falls. Should be "...hopefully much later, once..."
    • 3rd sentence "own my success to" -> "owe my success to". But also consider "to which I owe my success", which would be more in keeping with the (somewhat affected) style you are going for.
    Chapter 1
    • 1st graf, 3rd sentence, add comma after "of this study".
    • 2nd graf, 5th sentence, use semicolon instead of comma to avoid run-on sentence: "should not be anemic; there should not".
    • p4 last graf, 2nd sentence, spelling "hight" -> "height".
    • p4 last graf, last sentence, end with full point.
    • p5, acute accent, 5th sentence, "merely it's length" -> "merely its length".
    • p5 grave accent, 1st sentence: "a mirror image of the acute" - I can't comment too much on content but are you sure you want to say this?
    • p5 grave accent, 3rd sentence lower case "italic" to be consistent.
    • p5 caron, 2nd sentence: "Then flipped" is not a full sentence. Consider "This is then flipped...".
    • p5 Dieresis..., 1st sentence: "can't neither" -> "can neither". spelling "hights" -> "heights".
    • p6 Dot above, 2nd sentence: "can be different that" -> "can be different from" (or sometimes to).
    • p6 Dot above, 3rd sentence: ", like a comma." Better would be ", such as the comma".
    • p6 Dot above, 4th sentence: "different beast" -> "different beasts".
    • p6 Breve, 2nd sentence: "shorter than how much" is awkward. Consider "shorter than the thickness of the middle."
    • p6 Tilde, 1st graf: "undulating good" -> "undulates well".
    • p7 4th graf, 3rd sentence: "it attached to different letters than C" - unclear, recast.
    • p8 Æ, 6th sentence "you will get the glyph to look cluttered" is awkward. Consider something like "the glyph will end up looking cluttered".
    • p8 æ, 3rd sentence, "glyps" sp -> "glyph". 4th sentence "-we" -> "- we".
    • p8 Ç, 2nd sentence, "as many point" -> "as many points". 3rd sentence, full point at end.
    • p9 ÈÉÊË, space between "ÈÉÊË" and hyphen, and full point at end.
    • p9 ÌÌÎÏ, "for the mark... Shorten them" does not agree. Use " the marks" or "Shorten it".
    • p9 Ð, 1st sentence "Islandic" sp "Icelandic".
    • p9 ÑÒÓÔÕÖ 2nd sentence, "hight" sp "height".
    • p9 ÙÚÛÜÝ 2nd sentence, end with full point.
    • p10 Þ 2nd sentence, "serif of something" -> "serif or something". "or something different" is somewhat vague, anyway. What kind of different?
    • p10 ß, add hyphen after initial for consistency.
    • p11 ẞ: again I don't want to get much into content, but this is clearly wrong. There are multiple ways to style this; see Andreas and Adam's posts here.
    • p11 Àáâåæçèéêëìíï, 2nd sentence, "so many next to each other" is awkward. Consider "Keep in mind that you will never see so many accented glyphs next to each other". Also "speech" is not the right word for text! Full point at end.
    All I have time for now; will try to proof the rest later. In general, I found this quite difficult to read - typographically, it didn't look great with ragged lines and poorly-defined typographic hierarchy. As a text about typography, that unfortunately doesn't really inspire confidence in the content...
  • André G. Isaak
    André G. Isaak Posts: 633
    This is more of a comment than a proofreading tip. You should probably more clearly delineate which languages and/or areas your document is designed to cover as part of your introduction.

    There's at least a few places where you make claims which are true for European languages, but not for other languages. For example, the shape of uppercase Ŋ is frequently a larger version of the lowercase in many African languages, and Adam's page to which you refer readers regarding the ogonek is good as far as Polish is concerned, but the ogonek is also used in Navajo where it is expected to be centered under the letter rather than placed on the right side.

    Also, your choice of font is unfortunate for your discussion of ð. While a diagonal stroke is common in sans serif fonts, the more canonical form of this letter has a zig-zag rather than a simple stroke.
  • Vasil Stanev
    Vasil Stanev Posts: 775
    edited October 2019
    Simon Cozens I am blown away by your comment! You're excellent! Please keep up the good work!
    André G. Isaak European languages is what I feel I am most familiar with. Of course, I must be corrected for all the other languages that this or that memeber on this board has a better knowledge of. I hope this happens, not only for my tutorial but for everyone interested. :smiley:
  • Kent Lew
    Kent Lew Posts: 937
    the more canonical form of this letter has a zig-zag rather than a simple stroke
    André — I’m not sure why you refer to the zig-zag form as canonical. That form is no longer used as an exemplar in Unicode, and I believe it is rejected by most modern Icelanders.
    Gunnlauger SE Briem disparages that form on his page about the design of Icelandic thorn and eth. (Scroll down to the section labeled “Swastica crossbar”.)
  • notdef
    notdef Posts: 168
    Ur advice on Ø/ø is misleading.
  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 2,887
    Kent Lew said:
    the more canonical form of this letter has a zig-zag rather than a simple stroke
    André — I’m not sure why you refer to the zig-zag form as canonical. That form is no longer used as an exemplar in Unicode, and I believe it is rejected by most modern Icelanders.
    Gunnlauger SE Briem disparages that form on his page about the design of Icelandic thorn and eth. (Scroll down to the section labeled “Swastica crossbar”.)

    Agree. I have seen at least one presentation from another Icelandic designer (besides Briem) about the form of the eth (and I think it has been two from different designers). No recommendations for the zig-zag shape; I had forgotten it even existed until this discussion.
  • André G. Isaak
    André G. Isaak Posts: 633
    Kent — Thanks for bringing the Briem passage to my attention. I am not an Icelandic speaker, but rather someone who has worked on the history of English, and the zig-zag form seems more common in academic works on Old English. Obviously, the aesthetic sense of a living language should take priority over those of a dead one.
  • notdef
    notdef Posts: 168
    edited October 2019
    <— Ø/ø: Do not remove the center in dark weights. 99% of the time it should be there. The other 1% is better served by lettering/manipulating. + The bar needs cross compensation, usually more so in monolinear styles.
  • notdef
    notdef Posts: 168
    edited October 2019
    AND: If the Ø is missing parts, I expect other stuff to be equally funky/unusual. A couple of big local newspapers does this (of course with type from abroad) and it looks like the ø came to the wrong party.
  • Ray Larabie
    Ray Larabie Posts: 1,432
    edited October 2019
    The crossbar of Ð should match the height and style of crossbar of the E.

    For an ultrabold Ø, increase the counter size. Narrow the section of the bar the crosses the center. Include the crossbar compensation that @Frode Helland mentioned. Perhaps you could describe it as a similar concept to the optical compensation used on an X.

    You should recommend omitting ʼn as it's deprecated.
    https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Unicode_character_property#/Deprecated

    In the Vietnamese section you should advise readers that there should never be diacriticals on the left side of the caron. Lots of fonts contain this error. Keep the acutes, graves and rings to the right of the caron or if there's sufficient headroom in the lowercase, above the caron.

    Your example font shows a connected ring on Å which isn't incorrect but it's lowbrow and should be reserved for squishy situations like compact tabloid headline type.

    In the section on cedillas perhaps mention that using a cedilla that looks like a comma accent is a legitimate design option.
  • Craig Eliason
    Craig Eliason Posts: 1,436
    edited October 2019
    Ray Larabie said:
    The crossbar of Ð should match the height and style of crossbar of the E.
    You mean in a sans design I guess? I think of it more like a bar (as in /tbar or /sterling for example) than an arm as in /E.
  • Ray Larabie
    Ray Larabie Posts: 1,432
    @Craig Eliason
    Right, that's what I meant. Just aligned with E and similar weight.
  • notdef
    notdef Posts: 168
    Kra is still in use, btw, but not in Greenlandic.
  • Vasil Stanev
    Vasil Stanev Posts: 775
    edited October 2019
    I am very thankful for the advice, keep it coming so the tutorial can get better. 
    Kra is used where? Nunatsiavummiutut ?
  • notdef
    notdef Posts: 168
    I would rather you keep working, researching, and not publish before you have good sources for all your claims, instead of the release-early-and-iterate model.
  • James Puckett
    James Puckett Posts: 1,993
    Frode, what do you think of using a light slash for Ø and ø in a heavy typeface with narrow counters? For example:

  • notdef
    notdef Posts: 168
    edited October 2019
    I think it is comparable to other dense forms: B/E/e. How your design solves these should be reflected in ø. Type designers almost always make adjustments to all three horisontals in dark weights, though traditionally more so to the central one. As you have already established a darker bar in the Eth, I would expect the slash to follow suit, meaning the base letter needs adjustment.
  • notdef
    notdef Posts: 168
    edited October 2019
    Font creation software is masking something Unicode makes plain: Letters with overlapping diacritical marks are not considered base+diacritic, but rather separate shapes. Since both base and diacritic might require adjustments, the ø does not decompose to o+combining long solidus overlay as the ö decomposes to o+combining dieresis.
  • Jasper de Waard
    Jasper de Waard Posts: 639
    Personally I find it quite odd that there is no single clear source (FAFAIK) on extended latin, that links to other sources but at least points in the right direction. If everyone does their own research, we're wasting valuable time and effort, and the result probably suffers for it. Even though Vasil's attempt is probably not there yet (I'm really no expert), I like the idea of creating a more-or-less centralized document here on typedrawers.

    Of course, in this scenario I just enjoy the fruits of other people's labour. I get that not everyone would like that. But I honestly wouldn't mind paying or donating for reliable information.
  • k.l.
    k.l. Posts: 109
    http://www.alphabettes.org/resources-on-designing-diacritics/ mentions some past attempts at providing a more-or-less centralized document.
  • Andreas Stötzner
    Andreas Stötzner Posts: 792

    Jasper de Waard said:
    Personally I find it quite odd that there is no single clear source (FAFAIK) on extended latin, […] If everyone does their own research, we're wasting valuable time and effort, […]

    This is certainly the case; on the other hand: is it feasible to have all important information stored in just one document? Can one safeguard that this doc. is always up-to-date, featuring the latest developments and character addenda? Maybe, the issue is less about to have a single source, but rather to have a central source which guides you reliably in various directions. I don’t know of such a thing (yet).
    We had this topic recently:

  • John Hudson
    John Hudson Posts: 3,190
    Maybe, the issue is less about to have a single source, but rather to have a central source which guides you reliably in various directions.

    A git or wiki with an editorial admin group and clear criteria for information review would be ideal.
  • notdef
    notdef Posts: 168
    Some cultures prefer or can't read a particular form of Ŋ? I think this might be and outdated idea because those readers have likely been exposed to decades of Windows core fonts containing both forms and I've seen web pages and signage in both cultures using either form. Seems like a myth and if it's not, will it still be true in a decade?

    I interviewed Mikkel Berg-Nordlie recently, and he was adamant that the enlarged lowercase ŋ is unacceptable to Sami readers. I absolutely agree that minority cultural norms are challenged by the majority, but I don’t agree that we should contribute to that. 

  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,126
    Ray Larabie said:
    • Portuguese and French readers have different cedilla preferences? People have stated this on type forums. I don't personally believe it as I've only heard this concept from non Portuguese sources and every Portuguese reader I've asked doesn't care one way or another. But I've only asked Brazilians about it. If there is a preference, is it a reader's preference or a type designer's preference?
    • Some cultures prefer or can't read a particular form of Ŋ? I think this might be and outdated idea because those readers have likely been exposed to decades of Windows core fonts containing both forms and I've seen web pages and signage in both cultures using either form. Seems like a myth and if it's not, will it still be true in a decade?
    It is good for information to be up-to-date and accurate.
    However, if people are making use of computer fonts that don't properly support their language, using letters that are the closest available to the "proper" forms in their language, information should also be available to help type designers do a better job of providing the traditionally correct forms of letters for each language.
    Beginning the study with 19th-century printed books will get you information uncontaminated by the computer era. However, for some languages, a lack of local typefounders will mean that glyphs were borrowed from other languages back then to a greater extent than now, so meticulous research is needed; no one time period is automatically the best for every language.
    And while one is searching for authenticity, one can also be fooled by stylistic differences between typefaces. So there might be a tendency for the cedilla to look different in oldstyle and modern typefaces, and for different languages to be typeset more often in particular kinds of typeface.
    And if one is researching a whole bunch of languages, none of which one understands, with no native speakers assisting, yes, myths may get started. How does one distinguish the case where the readers of a language prefer a different type of cedilla from the case where Joe Blow, type designer, used an eccentric cedilla on one of his typefaces, which became popular in that country, and was copied by a few other typefaces... but the readers were just fine with the "standard" cedilla in other typefaces?
    So it certainly is true that striving after authenticity, seeking not to miss distinctions between languages that have, in the past, tended to be ignored in the name of convenience, can generate distinctions that aren't real. But I think a few mistakes like that are better than ignoring the possible distinctions and failing to treat different typographic traditions with respect. And reviving distinctions that have been neglected and lost (as opposed to making new ones up that never existed) is not bad, but good.
  • notdef
    notdef Posts: 168
    edited October 2019
    There are some examples of wikis out there already. https://www.scriptsource.org/ and http://diacritics.typo.cz/ comes to mind. Maybe first one should try and identify why these are not serving our purpose?

Categories