Browse biblitfonts: This Month's Archive • Main Archive Page • Related posts • Previous by Date • Next by Date

[biblitfonts] Re: New Greek characters in Unicode 4.0

From: "David J. Perry" <hospes.primus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <biblitfonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 22:58:55 -0400

> I modified a Monotype Times glyph to indicate what I mean (see <>): 
> the bowl is larger, so does not seem overshadowed by the Omicron, 
> Theta, Rho, Phi etc. and the joints with the vertical stroke are 
> further from the bracketing: this is in resonance with scribal forms 
> which seem to  emphasize the length of the stroke.
I agree that this looks better.  I also looked at some examples of
Thorn, which have a larger bowl with ends further from the brackets than
a half Phi would, just as you did with Sho (and for the same visual
reasons, I'm sure).

> I think that the descent of the middle part of the San/Mu may be 
> insufficient to distinguish unambiguously in the breadth of styles we 
> may see designed; therefore, I would like to suggest a combination of 
> characteristics of the two San forms from Jeffrey in David;s paper: 
> that the San not only has a short middle part, but also has slighlty 
> splayed legs, in contrast to a Mu with vertical ones. (Example 
> online,URL  as above.)
I agree that splayed legs would be an additional help in differentiating
Mu and San.  John, it would be helpful for me as a newcomer on the list
to have some idea of where you are with the Greek characters; is it
realistic or appropriate for us to suggest revising Mu, e.g.?

> For the lowercase I would certainly go for a middle part above the 
> baseline, and probably slightly splayed legs, albeit not as much as 
> in the capital.
I straightened out the splayed legs on san in my final version because
the font in which it was to go was an orthotic one.  I liked the
straight legs better when mixed with the existing letters.  For other
designs, though, I agree that the slightly splayed legs would be good,
especially if the capital has them.

When I designed a capital Lunate Sigma a few months ago I first tried to
use a Latin C.  The serifs just didn't look right, so I smoothed the
ends and pushed them a little closer together, just as Gerry describes.
I think that's definitely the way to go.  I looked at the Minion Pro
example that Gerry put up and tried to figure out _why_ I don't like the
serifs there, as I didn't in my own font.  It would seem better to have
the serifs to harmonize with the other capitals.  It occurs to me that
it may be a question of habit.  We are used to seeing E/Epsilon, P/Rho,
etc. with the same shape.  We see Lunate Sigma less often and so in my
mind, at least, the C with serifs is somehow not associated with a Greek
letter--it is advertising itself as a Latin form, not a Greek one, so to
speak.

David

Follow-Ups:

[biblitfonts] Re: New Greek characters in Unicode 4.0
From: John Hudson

References:
- [biblitfonts] Re: New Greek characters in Unicode 4.0
  - From: Gerry Leonidas

[biblitfonts] Re: New Greek characters in Unicode 4.0

Other related posts: