|
By:
Sorry Pokerm of course I was only talking about lower case a (then again should have been obvious from context). Ambigram is a word I thought I didn't know but having Googled it I think I did; where is the beautiful example above? An a doesn't look to me like a perfectly inverted e but that would depend on the font I presume. But why doesn't an a look like an a?
|
|
By:
Hello, Charlie.
![]() This was the ambigram I meant, sir. A beautiful example from the genius, John Langdon. ![]() |
|
By:
Apologies, sir, I got my threads mixed up. I had posted the ambigram elsewhere!
![]() |
|
By:
Hello Pokermonster.
Very impressive and it is beautiful (but has given me neck ache). Are you avoiding the a question? |
|
By:
You don't have to call me sir. Most people used a four letter word rather than three.
|
|
By:
Avoiding the question, sir?
About an a not looking like a traditional a you mean? A little, maybe, as I don't know the answer. Somebody morphed it into that inverted e style one day and it struck a chord with other font-makers I guess. |
|
By:
A very disappointing answer Pokermonster. I thought you would be the font of all knowledge on fonts. An upside down a would be easy to mix up with an e for typesetters which would surely be a disadvantage. Sorry but can't remember the technical term for the compartments that typesetters put their letters in. In evolutionary terms it doesn't scan for me.
|
|
By:
Here we are, Charlie.
The lower-case version can be written in two forms: the double-storey a and single-storey ɑ. The latter is commonly used in handwriting and fonts based on it, especially fonts intended to be read by children. |
|
By:
The ɑ you prefer is obviously based on the Greek symbol for alpha.
|
|
By:
But when and where and who introduced the double-storey variant, I'm afraid escapes me.
|
|
By:
Thank you Pm.
Still don't understand why the typographical a was invented, I'm assuming that the single-story a came first. Now I've said that I have no idea which one came first. It's not a preference by the way but was a problem when trying to prepare learning materials. |
|
By:
Ah, I have found our answer, Charlie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A |
|
By:
It appears the change came about in Roman times (no pun intended).
|
|
By:
it is because of the possibility that the ink would bleed in early printing, the single story would not be as clear in the case of a, there is also a single and double story g, but with the g it is the single story that is used and not the double.
|
|
By:
Just scanned it and seems it was the Greeks and Romans but still doesn't explain why typesetters used it.
|
|
By:
LFC's answer seems very plausible.
|
|
By:
lfc
Interesting, was getting on to g later but that seems to have disappeared somewhat now. |
|
By:
typesetters used it because the double story a was more easily distinguished from the o, it was easier to manufacture, the single story tended to become a o
|
|
By:
That will do me for now, thanks for discussion enjoyed it. And newsflash from lfc.
|
|
By:
That sounds plausible lfc (not sure about easier to manufacture though).
|
|
By:
it is quite difficult to mamufacture a single story a and for it to remain clear and precise
|
|
By:
Ah, I can see that now. Thanks. I can sleep easy tonight!
|
|
By:
it is not any more difficult to manufacture in that sense, just that with time the single story becomes a o
|
|
By:
![]() |
|
By:
early typeset manufacturers did not like the idea of the double line that comes down the side of the single story a, quite apart from the problem of the small final tail which tended to wear off
|
|
By:
Typical printer! Trying to save ink by leaving the e out of storey.
|
|
By:
sorry about that poker |
|
By:
![]() |
|
By:
Did you ever see Stephen Fry's documentary on the Gutenberg Bible, LFC? An absolutely fascinating study of early printing methods.
|
|
By:
Here it is if anyone is interested. It's well worth a watch, I promise you won't be disappointed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8svE2AjQWYE |
|
By:
yes Pokermonster thanks, i had seen it and watched it again When you saw the replica printing press that they built and the quality of the print on the page it really was better than you would think possible.
a technology that lasted 500 years. |
|
By:
I Kept a VHS copy of PARK ROW (1952)
brilliant newspaper film, a lot of which deals with hot metal typesetting. rate the film highly. thought youtube might have it? |
|
By:
Fascinating thread - justification, letter-spacing, rivers etc ... must surely be a few old Hot Metal Compositors, Readers, Linotype Operators or Monotype Caster Operators on here ...?
|
|
By:
dead industry? all desktop publishing now?
|
|
By:
Yea pretty much zorro - still a few big printing companies producing books and magazines or specialising in very high quality print such as art catalogues etc. All the small commercial jobbing companies are pretty much obsolete along with the above-mentioned trades.
|
|
By:
Anyone seen PARK ROW (1952) ?
|