It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
I’m grateful to @Helmut Wollmersdorfer for furnishing the reference works. I have to admit that I never paid much attention to the post-WWII German Yiddish reference books, though I have read many scholarly journal articles on various Yiddish subjects by authors associated with German universities. It should be noted that the excellent Yiddish dictionary by Solon Beinfeld (an acquaintance of mine) and Harry Bocher was based closely on the superb Yiddish-Frantsoyzish Worterbukh (Dictionnaire Yiddish-Français) by Yitskhok Niborski and Bernard Vaisbrot (Paris: Bibliothèque Medem, 2002).
I’ve begun to think that there is very reasonable phonological sense to the use of the initial eszett for transliterating Yiddish, at least in the German context, and I hereby withdraw my earlier remark.
Some typographic matters: the Hebrew cursive in the Ave-Lallement Das Deutsche Gauntertum is a very odd outlier, so much so that I can compare its oddity only to Eric Gill’s very willful Hebrew inscriptional letters and Hugh J. Schoenfield’s “New Hebrew Script” (1932). The Rashi and Vaybertaytsh scripts are NOT the same. Vaybertaytsh (“Ladies’ German” [i.e. Yiddish]) was used exclusively for the Yiddish language in 16th- and 17th-century printed books, except in early 16th-century Prague, where it was also used for the rabbinic commentaries that are customarily set in Rashi (the rabbinic semi-cursive).
Adam Twardoch said:
Franz, are you Austrian or German?
John Savard said:
I want to thank you for your post, as it inspired me first to update a page on my site about keyboard arrangements
Franz Gratzer said:
I suspect most people wouldn't want to give someone like me the power to define standards ... especially in this subject.
Andreas Stötzner said:
to put a long story short: the character ß evolved neither as “s-z” nor as “s-s”. It evolved as a ſ-derivate (an ſ with something). Centuries later the glyph representation(s) of it got interpreted as “s-z” (blackletter) or, still much later, “s-s” (italic types) – just due to visual likeliness, not more.
Ray Larabie said:
Why is the ß usually SS in all caps fonts?
Franz Gratzer said:The third version would very likely leave me totally clueless. To me it looks like a horizontally mirrored \2 with something totally obscure attached.
Christian Thalmann said:
John, not only do none of those look remotely
like an eszett, but they're horribly unsound constructions regardless of