German ss

Is ß a digraph or a ligature? In some fonts it's just a ſ and an s close together.

DKleinecke

2017-05-19 18:54:03 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is ß a digraph or a ligature? In some fonts it's just a ſ and an s close together.

The answer, of course, is yes.

Assuming it really means two 's' it's a ligature. If I am
wrong and it really represents only one phone it is a
digraph.

But my scope of authority is very small.

Peter T. Daniels

2017-05-19 20:12:21 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is ß a digraph or a ligature? In some fonts it's just a ſ and an s close together.

The answer, of course, is yes.
Assuming it really means two 's' it's a ligature. If I am
wrong and it really represents only one phone it is a
digraph.

How's that? Does <ae> cease being a digraph in <encyclopaedia> vs. <encyclopædia>?

Post by DKleinecke
But my scope of authority is very small.

DKleinecke

2017-05-19 23:47:12 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is ß a digraph or a ligature? In some fonts it's just a ſ and an s close together.

The answer, of course, is yes.
Assuming it really means two 's' it's a ligature. If I am
wrong and it really represents only one phone it is a
digraph.

How's that? Does <ae> cease being a digraph in <encyclopaedia> vs. <encyclopædia>?

That 'ae' is a digraph but it is ALSO a ligature in 'æ'. One
imagines a digraph that is also a ligature will evolve into
a single glyph. There may even be historical examples.

Perhaps 'G' evolved thus from 'C".

Peter T. Daniels

2017-05-20 03:06:01 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is ß a digraph or a ligature? In some fonts it's just a ſ and an s close together.

The answer, of course, is yes.
Assuming it really means two 's' it's a ligature. If I am
wrong and it really represents only one phone it is a
digraph.

How's that? Does <ae> cease being a digraph in <encyclopaedia> vs. <encyclopædia>?

That 'ae' is a digraph but it is ALSO a ligature in 'æ'. One
imagines a digraph that is also a ligature will evolve into
a single glyph. There may even be historical examples.

Yeah -- that one has evolved into e in AmE.

Post by DKleinecke
Perhaps 'G' evolved thus from 'C".

It didn't evolve. It was invented by the freedman Spurius Carvilius Ruga, the
first named educator in Roman history, mid-3rd c. BCE, perhaps because he was
tired of his name being mispronounced Ruka.

Ruud Harmsen

2017-05-20 19:28:42 UTC

Fri, 19 May 2017 20:06:01 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by DKleinecke
Perhaps 'G' evolved thus from 'C".

It didn't evolve. It was invented by the freedman Spurius Carvilius Ruga, the
first named educator in Roman history, mid-3rd c. BCE, perhaps because he was
tired of his name being mispronounced Ruka.

Interesting. So originally originally the Latin alphabet had only 18
letters: ABCDEFHILMNOPQRSTV.

J delevoped from I much later.
V and U were variants of the same thing.
W was a later double V of U.
G was a special kind of C.
K, X, Y, Z were imports from Greek. (Expect in kalendae?)
26 - 8 = 18

Peter T. Daniels

2017-05-21 03:13:31 UTC

Post by Ruud Harmsen
Fri, 19 May 2017 20:06:01 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by DKleinecke
Perhaps 'G' evolved thus from 'C".

It didn't evolve. It was invented by the freedman Spurius Carvilius Ruga, the
first named educator in Roman history, mid-3rd c. BCE, perhaps because he was
tired of his name being mispronounced Ruka.

Interesting. So originally originally the Latin alphabet had only 18
letters: ABCDEFHILMNOPQRSTV.
J delevoped from I much later.
V and U were variants of the same thing.
W was a later double V of U.
G was a special kind of C.
K, X, Y, Z were imports from Greek. (Expect in kalendae?)
26 - 8 = 18

X was always in Latin. K was dropped from Latin. Y and Z were imported from
Greek to write Greek loanwords.

Helmut Richter

2017-05-20 09:48:39 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
How's that? Does <ae> cease being a digraph in <encyclopaedia> vs. <encyclopædia>?

I would have defined a digraph as two glyphs for one sound (e.g. -sh-
and -ee- in "sheep") and a ligature an *optional* joining of two glyphs
into one, irrespective of whether it is one sound or more than one, e.g.
-ﬂ- (the fl ligature). A former ligature whose usage is no longer
optional (except when the media has too restricted a character set) is a
single glyph.

If both "encyclopaedia" and "encyclopædia" are valid spellings in
English, -æ- is a ligature, but Danish -æ- is a glyph.

By this definition, -ß- is clearly a single glyph and not a ligature
although is certainly evolved from one. Yet it has no own place in the
alphabetical order, as distict from Danish -æ- which has.

--
Helmut Richter

Peter T. Daniels

2017-05-20 13:45:43 UTC

Post by Helmut Richter

Post by Peter T. Daniels
How's that? Does <ae> cease being a digraph in <encyclopaedia> vs. <encyclopædia>?

I would have defined a digraph as two glyphs for one sound (e.g. -sh-
and -ee- in "sheep") and a ligature an *optional* joining of two glyphs

Why optional?

Post by Helmut Richter
into one, irrespective of whether it is one sound or more than one, e.g.
-ﬂ- (the fl ligature). A former ligature whose usage is no longer
optional (except when the media has too restricted a character set) is a
single glyph.
If both "encyclopaedia" and "encyclopædia" are valid spellings in
English, -æ- is a ligature, but Danish -æ- is a glyph.

That's a convention within Scandinavian. I'm glad I don't have to decide how to
handle the German allographs ä and ae.

Post by Helmut Richter
By this definition, -ß- is clearly a single glyph and not a ligature
although is certainly evolved from one. Yet it has no own place in the
alphabetical order, as distict from Danish -æ- which has.

I need to give it a (single) label in the index of my book. I index the mentions
of A, letter; Ā, matra; Æ, ligature; AE, digraph; and ſ, letter.

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

2017-05-19 19:08:16 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is ß a digraph or a ligature? In some fonts it's just a ſ and an s close together.

A ligature, because it consists of s and z.

Peter T. Daniels

2017-05-19 20:10:26 UTC

Post by MÅcisÅaw Wojna-Bojewski

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is ß a digraph or a ligature? In some fonts it's just a ſ and an s close together.

A ligature, because it consists of s and z.

In Fraktur, but not in Antiqua (Roman).

Mścisław Wojna-Bojewski

2017-05-20 05:34:18 UTC

Post by MÅcisÅaw Wojna-Bojewski

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is ß a digraph or a ligature? In some fonts it's just a ſ and an s close together.

A ligature, because it consists of s and z.

In Fraktur, but not in Antiqua (Roman).

Even in some forms of Antiqua, it is obviously a combination of a long s (reduced into a vertical line) and a tailed z (an ezh). So, historically speaking it is a ligature, even though it now works as a digraph.

Ruud Harmsen

2017-05-20 19:35:00 UTC

Fri, 19 May 2017 22:34:18 -0700 (PDT): M?cis?aw Wojna-Bojewski

Even in some forms of Antiqua, it is obviously a combination of a long s (r=
educed into a vertical line) and a tailed z (an ezh). So, historically spea=
king it is a ligature, even though it now works as a digraph.

Or of a long s and a normal s. Not that the ß originally wasn't just
German, it also occurred in Dutch, Spanish and Portugese. Usually for
ss, not sz.

http://rudhar.com/lingtics/tuktalvr/
http://rudhar.com/lingtics/tuktalvr/nl02a.htm
(in Dutch)

Christian Weisgerber

2017-05-19 21:07:12 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is ß a digraph or a ligature? In some fonts it's just a ſ and an s close together.

Offhand, I'd say the dominant variant is a single letter and neither
a digraph nor a ligature, but my understanding of typography is
very limited and I've never payed particular attention.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F#Buchstabenform

I think #4 is most common... but the caption for the last of the
example pictures seems to indicate that the Arial and Helvetica
forms, which look like prime instances of #4 to me, are in fact #2
and #3, so I'm left confused.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de

Peter T. Daniels

2017-05-20 03:07:51 UTC

Post by Christian Weisgerber

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is ß a digraph or a ligature? In some fonts it's just a ſ and an s close together.

Offhand, I'd say the dominant variant is a single letter and neither
a digraph nor a ligature, but my understanding of typography is
very limited and I've never payed particular attention.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F#Buchstabenform
I think #4 is most common... but the caption for the last of the
example pictures seems to indicate that the Arial and Helvetica
forms, which look like prime instances of #4 to me, are in fact #2
and #3, so I'm left confused.

#4 is the most familiar, I've seen #1 in earlier-20th-c. prints.

Ruud Harmsen

2017-05-20 19:20:45 UTC