Which form of the Cyrillic lowercase ghe with a stroke (uni0493) is preferable in the italics?

Stefan Peev
Stefan Peev Posts: 104
Here are some semples of the Cyrillic lowercas ghe with a stroke (uni0493). Which one is more correct for the italic style?

Tagged:

Answers

  • Igor Petrovic
    Igor Petrovic Posts: 344
    edited March 18
    Here is a note just in case there is no clear suggestion about this letter. 

    While writing the article about Serbian Cyrillic, I found out some areas that were not precisely established, either in theory or in practice. I guess that there are even more such areas in Cyrillic languages with a smaller number of speakers.

    My approach there was to follow a general type design logic (what is optically better). At least until a clear, relevant suggestion appears.

    In other words, that is an opportunity to establish a solution with better design, in practice. In this case, I would prefer a solution with an angled slash, because it uses a white space better, and avoids a clogged crossing and broken diagonal (famous "X optical issue").

    On the other side, that also depends on the /ghe shape. In your example, too angled a slash would touch the /ghe terminals. But anyway, whatever optically works best.
  • John Hudson
    John Hudson Posts: 3,628
    The cursive form with flatter bar is what I am most used to seeing (so like Gentium and Source Serif). The Tinos and Times versions look wrong to me: this is a barred letter, and their little slashes are too light and too far off the horizontal. That said, I agree with Igor that some aspects of Cyrillic typography are not firmly established.

    The sloped non-cursive forms as in the top row can work in a sans serif with general sloped upright approach, but I think look weird alongside a cursive un-barred /ghe. Either the italic is cursive or it isn’t.
  • I agree with Igor that some aspects of Cyrillic typography are not firmly established.
    And this is not surprising. The natural development of the Cyrillic was brutally halted in the 17th century.
  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,219
    I agree with Igor that some aspects of Cyrillic typography are not firmly established.
    And this is not surprising. The natural development of the Cyrillic was brutally halted in the 17th century.

    I just checked; Peter the Great's edict changing how Russian was written took place in 1708, which would place it in the early part of the 18th Century. Or are you possibly referring to another event?
  • @John Savard you are correct — 18th Century. I started writing a year but changed my mind to writing a century ...from the phone, on a party, and Voilà...