What is your favorite letter?

zeno333's picture

In the video here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F691weEVpwc&feature=related

....Erik Spiekermann says his favorite letter is the "small a"...I totally agree....It is the most complex and has the most potential for variation as he says....That is one of the reasons I have always been fascinated with the "Galliard" typeface, it is revolutionary since it dares to "throw away" much of the potential variation of the small letter a and replace that with just a uniform width straight line!!!....INGENIOUS I say.....

Té Rowan's picture

It sounds something like a 'kh', then?

John Hudson's picture

It sounds something like a 'kh', then?

What does that mean? In whose orthography? That's my point: unless you have a description of how a sound is made by the vocal system, you're not really describing anything unambiguously meaningful. For instance, if I see 'kh' I presume an aspirated velar stop, because that is what 'kh' most often indicates in English orthography. But the same letter sequence might indicate something quite different to someone else (including, possibly, a pharyngeal fricative). This is why the IPA alphabet exists, to provide symbols that correspond to the specific descriptions of how sounds are made, rather than the ambiguous mappings of conventional alphabets.

Té Rowan's picture

The 'kh' I was thinking of is probably a voiceless velar fricative, if the 'pedia is to go by.

hrant's picture

You can't clear phlegm with a "kh".

hhp

John Hudson's picture

The 'kh' I was thinking of is probably a voiceless velar fricative, if the 'pedia is to go by.

Ah. So similar to the Arabic ح in that it involves constricting airflow between the tongue and another surface, but further forward in the mouth. I suspect a lot of English speakers trying to learn Arabic begin by trying to fake the ح sound with a velar fricative, because they're not used to making sounds so far back, in the throat.

hrant's picture

And just wait till you try the ق. :-)

hhp

dezcom's picture

Sounds like visiting my uncle Stathis at the assisted living center.

Typogruffer's picture

My Latin favorite is lowercase g
My non-latin favorite is sheen ش

Té Rowan's picture

Pharyngeal... reminds me of a time when an Icelandic TV reporter got an impromptu lesson in pronouncing Qaqortoq. The 'q' sounded like it came from deep in the throat.

quadibloc's picture

I thought that the Armenian alphabet had a simple and uncontroversial origin, like the Glagolitic, from some obscure form of cursive Greek writing.

In seeking the materials from which Mesrop Mashtots worked, so that I might suggest how a voiceless pharyngaeal fricative would have been written in Armenian, though, I have found that it was not so simple.

Gardthausen favored Greek, but this was already deprecated by Taylor, who favored the advanced form of Zend found in the inscriptions at Kapur di Giri.

And there is the recent theory, mentioned in this forum, that there is more than a mere superficial resemblance between Ge'ez and Armenian.

So I thought I would check on Glagolitic; surely the origin of that from cursive Greek is uncontroversial. And I found a paper suggesting that Cyril and Methodius would have been rather too late to have invented that script... because it derived from Linear A. Somewhere around Greece still, but...

However, Isaac Taylor at least also exhibits the presumed cursive Greek antecedents of the Glagolitic letters.

And while Mhedruli doesn't look much like Armenian, Hutsuri does... but am I surprised to see Georgian nationalists claiming Mesrop had nothing to do with the origin of their script? (Taylor feels he used a better version of Zend for the Georgians because with them he was working from a clean slate... the Armenians already using an inferior version of Zend to write with, Mesrop was constrained.)

...the Armazi script is proposed as one of the more likely alternative sources of Georgian; but I've now stumbled on one source that says that it, rather than Zend, was what Mesrop used, in addition to Greek uncials, to create the Armenian alphabet!

At least with so many candidates, I should have no problem finding enough shapes with which to extend the Armenian alphabet so that it can be used to write Sanskrit.

And, of course, let us not forget the Albanians of the Caucasus (no relation to the Albanians of the Balkans) and the alphabet Mesrop gave them.

hrant's picture

It's not clear exactly what Mesrop used as inspiration; some scholars even claim his design was totally original* and it was only the scribes later on that made our script look more like others (because they were used to copying things in Greek, etc.). In fact it's entirely possible that Mesrop might have have yelled "What the Hell are you doing?!" at those braindead copyists.

* Which is highly plausible because the whole reason to invent the Armenian alphabet was in fact to fight assimilation, and copying other scripts goes directly against that.

am I surprised to see Georgian nationalists claiming Mesrop had nothing to do with the origin of their script?

Can you spot the key word in that phrase? :-) Most Georgians had no problem accepting that an Armenian had designed their writing system... until we started demanding more respect for the Javakhk region!

I should have no problem finding enough shapes

But frankly why even worry so much about historic precedents? To me they can only hold us back; the best shape for that sound would come from an analysis of what readers need today.

hhp

altsan's picture

Going back to the original question, I think I like 'R' and 'e'... partly because I find there's so much scope for having fun in designing them; also, you can tell so much about a font just by looking at those two characters...

Moving away from Latin, I'm also fond of ね. (Perhaps ゑ even more so, but that one isn't used in modern Japanese so I'll relegate it to an honourable mention.)

quadibloc's picture

@hrant:
To me they can only hold us back; the best shape for that sound would come from an analysis of what readers need today.

Hmm. My thinking was simply that starting from a historical precedent, even if it came from a theory which would not withstand critical scrutiny, was an improvement on just making a shape up.

Your point is definitely valid; my first reaction was to think that this would simply be an after-the-fact constraint to ensure any new shape used is legible and distinctive. On further thought, however, there's also the issue of the learning curve.

Instead of digging into historical precedent to find out what Mesrop might conceivably have done, which did make sense for the original intended application as I understood it, if one was talking about adding new letters to Armenian for widespread adoption (which, incidentally, I've learned has already happened twice since Mesrop) the proper example to follow would be that of the Initial Teaching Alphabet, so as to avoid a steep learning curve.

That is, any new letters ought to resemble, although being differentiated from, existing letters related in sound, so that it would be immediately obvious what they were for.

timd's picture

I always enjoyed an e at the end of a line when calligraphing, crossbar flourish. Or an uppercase G at the beginning of a line.

Tim

hrant's picture

has already happened twice since Mesrop

Yes, the Օ and Ֆ... both of which are out of character with the rest of the alphabet (with the former also being a sad case of script-borrowing). Mesrop would never have made those that way; they are products of multiple levels of ignorance.

any new letters ought to resemble, although being differentiated from, existing letters related in sound

This is a classic conundrum for anybody contemplating the invention of letter symbols. Learning and doing are not the same, and are often at what I call "90 degrees", meaning they pull in somewhat different directions. A symbol that's easy to "figure out" because it resembles the shape of a similar sound becomes harder on readability when efficiency gets factored in (think speed and parafoveal depth) once you no longer need to make the connection. So,which to favor? Or rather: where to strike the balance? Which BTW is the beauty and power of Hangul: you can easily learn the basic alphabetic components that join to make up the 2-4 letter syllable shapes, but once you know a compiled syllable shape you can read much faster without bothering with the letters. And this is exactly a power that comes from conscious design, unlike the headless-chicken evolution typical of most scripts.

For example, is it good that the words "opposite" and "apposite" have opposite meanings? :-)

hhp

John Hudson's picture

For example, is it good that the words "opposite" and "apposite" have opposite meanings?

This seems to be a distinct sort of question from that regarding letter shape. Almost all languages have root systems that link related words, even if the relationship is one of opposition as in this case. Sometimes, these root systems are reflected in pronunciation, often in spelling (even when pronunciation changes) and sometimes both.

quadibloc's picture

@hrant:
the Օ and Ֆ...

No, I counted that as once, although since it happened in the Middle Ages, the two letters could have been added on separate occasions.

The second time, at least according to Wikipedia, was և (a ligature for եւ, I suppose) and ՈՒ (or ու in lower case) which, although looking like a digraph, is counted as a new letter.

hrant's picture

Yes, my "apposite"/"opposite" parallel was a bit... metaphorical.

The և is supposed to only be used like an ampersand - it's not a letter. The ՈՒ/ու was a Soviet joke at our expense; it's not a single letter for about half of the world's Armenian population. Note BTW that the people who regard ՈՒ/ու as a letter no longer regard Ւ/ւ as such (which is part of the same joke).

hhp

quadibloc's picture

@hrant:
Note BTW that the people who regard ՈՒ/ու as a letter no longer regard Ւ/ւ as such (which is part of the same joke).

Hmm. Would this be like making QU/qu/Qu a single letter in English, so that we would no longer regard Q/q as a letter?

On the other hand, our Dutch friends do regard ij as a single letter.

hrant's picture

Basically no word starts with Ւ/ւ, and since the Soviet-era spelling reform (carried out in the 1930s) only has it after Ո/ո they decided to change the alphabet by replacing Ւ/ւ with ՈՒ/ու. BUT in the Mesropian orthography* Ւ/ւ is used much more. I'm a reform-minded person myself, but even more important is Intent, and it's no secret that the Soviet intent with the reform wasn't to help kids learn spelling faster, it was to further alienate the homeland and the diaspora. And sadly it worked, because even two decades after independence we're still arguing -sometimes bitterly**- about which spelling is Correct.

* Which in Armenia is referred to as "classical" to avoid offending Mashtots. :-/

** You should see the two comments -one from each side- submitted to that recent Armenotype piece*** that I couldn't approve for posting. :-/

*** http://armenotype.com/2012/08/the-armenian-language-dilemma/

If/when the IJ/ij is a single letter, it should look and act like a single letter, which the Dutch haven't succeeded in pulling off yet. The recent resolution of the UC eszet is a nice contrast to that. BTW: http://typophile.com/node/34111

hhp

quadibloc's picture

It's hard enough for Armenians in the diaspora to convince their children that continuing to use Armenian is worth the effort!

To feel that it's worth the effort to learn Eastern Armenian - so that there is no longer "two of everything" - and, incidentally, to adopt the unfortunate tamperings with the language you decry - when one speaks Western Armenian just makes it that much harder.

BrettR's picture

For me it has to be either the "lowercase k" or the "lowercase b"

Syndicate content Syndicate content