New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Just been thinking about cedilla options. Microsoft typography says this...
The under comma is the preferred form in the Romanian language for the uppercase characters S and T with under comma accent and lowercase s and t with under comma accent. Four new Unicode values have been defined to accommodate this preference: Scommaaccent U+0218 ; scommaaccent U+0219 ; Tcommaaccent U+021A ; tcommaaccent U+021B
The connecting cedilla is the preferred form in the Turkish language for the uppercase S with cedilla and lowercase s with cedilla: Scedilla U+015E ; scedilla U+015F
An under comma is an acceptable alternative to a connecting cedilla for the following characters: Ccedilla U+00c7 ; ccedilla U+00e7 ; Kcedilla U+0136 ; kcedilla U+0137 ; Lcedilla U+013b ; lcedilla U+013c ; Ncedilla U+0145 ; ncedilla U+0146 ; Rcedilla U+0156 ; rcedilla U+0157 ; Tcedilla U+0162 ; tcedilla U+0163
In the Portuguese and Catalan languages the traditional connecting style of a cedilla is more commonly preferred for the Ccedilla U+00c7 and ccedilla U+00e7.
It is common in modern designs and French typography to see a cedilla design with a stroke that is not connecting or as in common handwriting, a line that passes through the bottom or beneath the uppercase or lowercase c.
Are Microsoft right, should I do what they say?
Who is the authority on cedillas?
Does my cedilla have to be a traditional shape? Would an undercomma-style cedilla on my ccedilla and scedilla offend or upset French/Turkish/Portuguese/anyone else? Should I just knuckle down and design a traditional cedilla that connects with the c and s?
19 Sep 2008 — 6:28pm
> I have never seen a detached cedilla in a serif font (in French).
I am sure I have never seen a French text typeset in Goudy Old Style. Here is how that looks on my mac:
For me, that one looks quite weird; I can't see that thing under the c as a cedilla, I see it a comma even if the only possible diacritic under a c in French is a cedilla. As for Eurostyle or Futura, I see no problem; their detached and unadorned cedilla allows a much larger freedom of interpretation.
By the way, if you are on a Mac and use "Show character palette", View: Roman, Accented Latin and click on the ç on the right, you will see all the ccedillas of all the fonts installed on you mac in the bottom pannel; I was surprised by Adobe's Rosewood ccedilla.
Michel
12 Jul 2009 — 9:56am
Michel: can you show us the comma?
12 Jul 2009 — 3:27pm
You mean Goudy Old Style's comma? Here it is with the cedillas.
At that size, things seem to look better.
By the way, in his book The palaeography of Gothic manuscript books: from the twelfth to the early sixteenth century, Albert Derolez describes on page 173 a script he calls "Iberian Hybrida" (a gothic script used in Spain and Portugal) saying
And here is figure 26:
Michel
13 Jul 2009 — 5:40pm
Wierd. Thank you, Michel.
19 Jul 2009 — 5:38pm
The last issue (March 2009) of Paulo Heitlinger's Cardernos de Tipografia e Design is devoted in a large part to his font Escolar uma fonte contemporânea para aprender a escrever e ler to be used in primary school to learn reading and writing. There are two versions of that font, one for Portugal, one for Brasil, and amongst the differences there is... guess what... the c cedilla. And here is a grab of his pdf:
Can someone tell me how they teach children to write cedillas in Brasil? :)
Michel
24 Jul 2009 — 4:56pm
Can someone tell me how they teach children to write cedillas in Brasil?
Cedillas are teached the same way in both countries. What you just showed us is just wrong.
Cheers!
24 Jul 2009 — 5:50pm
Cedillas are teached the same way in both countries.
How do you know? There are slides from Florian Hardwig's manuscribe project that show that the way children are taught to write letters can vary a lot from country to country.
What you just showed us is just wrong.
The question here is not what is right and what is wrong but what is true and what is false. Is the statement "Some (many?) schools in Portugal teach children to draw cedillas as in the font Escolar Portugal true or false? The above grab of "Escolar Portugal" corresponds to the glifos + exemplos (pdf 280 K) on the font site. The answer needs to be yes or no, not right or wrong.
24 Jul 2009 — 6:54pm
> There are two versions of that font, one for Portugal, one for Brasil, and amongst the differences there is... guess what... the c cedilla.
I think this differentiation is artificial. I see no reason for it to exist. I personally have no preference over one or the other. They're both acceptable, legible, readable and intelligible as a 'ccedilla'.
In practice, the cedilla in people's day-to-day handwriting is a basic downward (slightly curved) stroke under the 'c', either attached or unattached. FWIW, I can't remember the last time I wrote a hook-like cedilla on my c's, but I certainly do it in my glyphs.
24 Jul 2009 — 7:21pm
The question here is not what is right and what is wrong but what is true and what is false. Is the statement “Some (many?) schools in Portugal teach children to draw cedillas as in the font Escolar Portugal true or false? The above grab of “Escolar Portugal” corresponds to the glifos + exemplos (pdf 280 K) on the font site. The answer needs to be yes or no, not right or wrong.
There isn't much of a question here, really. lula_assasina's right too - the portuguese language has not adopted undercommas, only cedillas. If, by definition, cedillas connect to the character, then it seems pretty clear that the cedilla should, well, actually connect to the character. The fact that typefaces might be designed without that concern hardly means they're not wrong.
Anyway, I'm familiar with the teaching methods for the early stages in portuguese education and can say that we do teach our kids to write connected cedillas, so it's a yes to your question.
25 Jul 2009 — 2:44am
we do teach our kids to write connected cedillas
Thanks for this clear and unambiguous answer.
FWIW, I can’t remember the last time I wrote a hook-like cedilla on my c’s, but I certainly do it in my glyphs.
Miguel, I often find that hooked cedillas on fat fonts look weird. Here is a cedilla that I find bold and honest without being disturbing:
It comes from the first of these sites
http://www.monica.com.br/comics/halloween/pag1.htm
http://www.monica.com.br/comics/superproducao/welcome.htm
Enjoy. I like Chico Bento.
Michel
26 Jul 2009 — 5:47am
How do you know?
By asking a Brazilian primary school teacher who gave classes in both countries. Hook connected with a stroke to the bottom of the "c". At least, that's the way they teach future teachers. :)
26 Jul 2009 — 5:58am
Let me just be clear about one thing: cedillas and undercommas have different origins. Cedillas come from the Visigothic "z", which has a peculiar connected hook shape. Visigoths occupied the whole Iberian Peninsula.
Undercommas appeared in the Buda Lexicon, in Romania, 1825, in order resolve in graphya Romanian missing sounds.
26 Jul 2009 — 7:44am
Undercommas appeared in the Buda Lexicon, in Romania, 1825, in order resolve in graphya Romanian missing sounds.
Let me also be clear on one thing. If undercommas appeared in 1825, then they could not exist in 1482. Now, here is a font that was used in the Ratdolt 1482 edition of Elementa Geometriae by Euclid and that corresponds to the link Typ.1:109R (from the preceding link).
Consequently the glyph that is at the right of the c in Ratdolt's font cannot be that a "c undercomma".
Michel
26 Jul 2009 — 8:06am
And have a look at this 1540 edition of BARROS, João de, 1496-1570 Dialogo da viçiosa vergonha from the Biblioteca Nacional de Porgugal. Here is a grab (line 4, page 2v).
Michel
26 Jul 2009 — 1:25pm
Ah, better archives you got there!
Re-checked and Buda Lexicon has the proposition to include undercommas in the letters "s" and "t" in Romanian.
Then again, they still have different origins.
Consequently the glyph that is at the right of the c in Ratdolt’s font cannot be that a “c undercomma”.
Mind your sarcasm, you don't need it, since you find enough proofs to be right.
Thanks for the great investigation again, Michel.
26 Jul 2009 — 2:48pm
Mind your sarcasm, you don’t need it
No sarcasm intended. My background is mathematics and I just used the style I use for mathematical proofs.
Michel
26 Jul 2009 — 4:09pm
Thanks for the great investigation again, Michel.
Welcome. I had other interesting things but I don't know where I put them. I have at least this link http://www.danteonline.it/english/codici_indice.htm where can be found manuscripts of Dante's Divine Comedy dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The first words "Nel mezzo" are sometimes written "Nel meçço", or "Nel meço" and the cedilla can take a wide variety of shapes. Here is a grab from the first page of this manuscript; look at the cedilla in red and the two in the word mezzo!
It seems that printing had a normalizing influence on Italian spelling. I could not find a single cedilla in incunabila of the Divine Comedy (but maybe I did not search hard enough...)
Michel
26 Jul 2009 — 6:19pm
Michel, I checked better the Diálogo da Viçosa Vergonha and the cedillas are correct. Maybe it doesn't have enough resolution to be clear.
Here's a titling:
27 Jul 2009 — 4:00am
Maybe it doesn’t have enough resolution to be clear.
It would be nice to have access to one of the high resolution versions. In the word bençã[o] above, it is hard to believe that there is ink between the c and the black diacritic. Is it possible the titling was attached and the regular detached? Else I would imagine an extremely fine line that would be beautiful in digital type but that would probably print with difficulty if the metal character is not melted properly.
Michel
27 Jul 2009 — 5:38am
I think you are right about this font. Here are three cedillas (if I dont't count the lower diacritic on the "e caudata") from page 13 of João de Barros' Grammatica da lingua portuguesa, 1540, that seems to have been printed in the same font.
Part of the problem seems to come from printing (if not from broken characters) but we would need a higher resolution digitization to really see what we need to guess in the first one. I like that font.
27 Jul 2009 — 7:31am
I found the files I was looking for. The cedillas come from a hand written text (in Spanish). The source is "Documents of the Hispanic Southwest: The Expedition of Francisco Vásquez de Coronado 1540-1542", Jerry R. Craddock (pdf 9.8MB). The document is concerned with palaeography and displays some fantastic cedillas. Here are a few grabs.
Michel
Edit: I should have said the hand-written text that is studied in Craddock's article is "Archivo General de Indias, Sevilla. Justicia 267, fol. 814r".
27 Jul 2009 — 9:07am
Those top two are some beauties, Michel!
ChrisL
27 Jul 2009 — 3:36pm
I found a better scan of the grammar (pdf 5.8MB). Here is what I get for the above grab (this time on page 30 on 124 of the pdf file instead of page 13v).
The attachment I had imagined on the first c does not seem to be there; it is just the c that seems to have been more inked. On the other hand, the attachment on the e is clearly there and there seems to be no problem with any of the "e caudata". It is now my feeling the cedilla is not attached in that font.
Michel
28 Jul 2009 — 7:53am
Cedillas come from the Visigothic “z”, which has a peculiar connected hook shape. [Fábio Martins, o Lula Assassina]
Here is the Visigothic "z" in Juan-José Marcos' (Professor of classical languages) Paleographic Fonts for Latin Script; this is a grab from page 27 (bottom) of his font sample file (pdf, 3.15 MB).
It does not look like a digit "3" fused at the bottom of a "c" that would have shrunk to give a cedilla like the svg Wiki figure.
Does anyone have a sample (from a digitized manuscript for example) of a Visigothic "z" that would look more like the Wiki?
Michel.
Added: I took the picture from the Cédille article (in French). The Cedilla (English) Wiki entry has a slightly different picture.
28 Jul 2009 — 11:00am
That visigothic "z" appears to be taken from this manuscript:
I'm having a hard time to find one like in the wiki.
28 Jul 2009 — 4:20pm
On the other hand, it is in my opinion rather clear from the text of the grammar itself that de Barros did not know the origin of the letter "ç" (the print is dated M.D.XL., 1540). Indeed, on page 10 of the pdf file (pdf 5.8MB) (leaf 3 verso, only rectos were numbered), he writes
That I understand to mean
(correct me if I am not faithful to the author) and he repeats on leaf 46 recto (page 95 of the pdf file):
where I understand that "ouuęmos" (with a nice "e ogonek" that may cause display problems) stands for "houvemos" (It appears to us that we got those letters from the Moors).
I am aware that the "ç" that was used in Italian and Spanish are now written "z" [**] and the few books on palaeography that I have seen state that the letter "ç" derives from the Visigothic letter "z". I have never seen references though. May I thus ask the question: who is the first to have stated it. Where is it soundly argumented?
Michel
[**] I know neither Spanish nor Italian. I think the old "ç" may now just be "c" in Spanish. However, the directives for transcribing Dante's Comedy were stating to always write "ç" and not "z" when a cedilla was used in the manuscript and I concluded that in Italian, a "ç" automatically became a "z" in the modern spelling.
28 Jul 2009 — 5:57pm
Michel, in modern Portuguese those two passages can be written as,
E assim temos esta letra ç, que parece ser inventada para pronunciação Hebraica ou Mourisca
and
Nos parece que houvemos estas letras dos mouriscos que vencemos
which would be translated into something like,
And here we have this letter ç, that seems like it was invented for the Hebrew and Moorish pronunciation
and
It looks to us that we gained these letters from the Moorish that we've defeated
28 Jul 2009 — 6:17pm
Thanks Miguel for the correction. I thought that "pera" was "pela" in Modern Portuguese; I seem to have seen a few instances where the letter "r" in de Barros would now be "l" but your translation makes much (and more) sense.
Michel
28 Jul 2009 — 7:07pm
I was also wondering if the word "assy" could not correspond to the modern French "aussi" (also) instead of the modern Portuguese "assim". Unfortunately, the pdf is not searchable and I could not check if the word "também" figures elsewhere in the file.
28 Jul 2009 — 11:58pm
There's an occurrence of "também" in leaf 45 recto
29 Jul 2009 — 12:21am
As I was perusing through the pages I noticed these few lines in leaf 25 recto
It was interesting to see the ſs ligature used along with the ſſ ligature.
2 Aug 2009 — 8:29am
Better digitizations are accessible on the Library local network as can be seen by clicking on the [i] icon at the right of the Cópia interna links of
Grammatica da lingua portuguesa
Dialogo da viçiosa vergonha
Michel
25 Mar 2010 — 7:30pm
Just now I saw this thread. As a Brazilian, let me add some information.
As said above, cedilla is the only diacritic you find below a character in Portuguese. It's also used just with /c/ in /ça/ço/çu/ combinations. And it never begins a word. Besides this, our contact with Romanian and Turkish cultures are almost none, so Brazilians doesn't know there is a thing like commaccent.
Almost anything you put bellow a /c/ will be easily read as a cedilla in Brazilian Portuguese. It may be a cedilla, a commaccent, a straight line, an acute... all this will work because there is no other diacritic to be confused with cedilla. And also because cedilla usage, although common, is very specific.
Scholars learn to wrote cedilla as an upside-down hook.
To design and use disconnected cedillas is not an issue to Brazilians. But this is not a trend in Portuguese. It's just a variation in cedilla shape made possible due to local language and culture (I believe the same applies to Portugal). In other hand, disconnected cedillas in a traditional serif font may seem strange nowadays. Even if this was not unusual in 15th and 16th Centuries, later it seems to be changed to an always-connected-shape. Remember that Portuguese is a relatively new language if compared to other Romance ones. Its consolidation came just in late 1400s/early 1500s.
And, of course, many people may use wrong cedillas due to lack of knowledge about the commaccent existence. The book 'Ação de cobrança' cited above is a good example. I'm sure its editors have no idea they're using a commaccent-like cedilla, especially considering it's a Law book (Law books are usually badly designed here).
But if one designs a font with international support, both cedilla and commaccent clearly distinguished. The designer may even adopt a disconnected cedilla if this is suitable to general font style – but this cedilla still needs to by clearly different than a commaccent. A 'multi-purpose' diacritic seems not acceptable.
Finally, for me it's quite obvious that if one must observe the correct position and shape of other diacritics, as ogoneks, exactly the same applies to cedillas. Graphical similarity and some circumstantial wrong usage does not justify a font to mix up cedilla and commaccent.
27 Mar 2010 — 4:46pm
@Freiberger
Beautiful sum up.