3 ms·

For those of you who were confused by the title as I was: > I am aware, of course, that scripts and fonts – as used in the title – are not the same thing. Howe

by Isamu 11y ago

For those of you who were confused by the title as I was: > I am aware, of course, that scripts and fonts – as used in the title – are not the same thing. However, I like the comparison of the two, and used it here, because just like medieval script, a font also varies on the level of family (Times New Roman) and execution (e.g. a 12 point letter). I thought maybe someone had developed some modern fonts from medieval scripts ... this is talking about hand-written scripts, which is still way cool.

galago 11y ago
What's the linguistic term for retroactively applying a word like this? Its like referring to a horse-drawn cart as a "medieval car". I don't think calligraphers would get too upset about it--and maybe contemporary English actually allows it. It is the reverse of how these things were thought of though in the past.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > Its like referring to a horse-drawn cart as a "medieval car". I don't think calligraphers would get too upset about it--and maybe contemporary English actually allows it. I see it as more like referring to medieval nobles as "hunting with dogs", when the actual term in use at the time would have been "hounds". If you don't think it's weird for, say, a Russian guy to refer to ancient letter forms using a Russian word for that sort of category rather than "script", you also shouldn't think it's weird for English speakers to use their word rather than an archaism.
  - galago 11y ago
    No, a 'font' is a tool for the mechanical representation of text. First with wood/metal, then with later technologies. Hand drawn letters are in scripts or styles. I think I've been too charitable with my words.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      As used, a "font" is a particular inventory of letter forms, distinguishing, say, ℂ from C, when both of those represent a platonic capital letter 'c'. That is the sense in which modern English speakers are applying it to inventories of letter forms in medieval writing. Checking Merriam-Webster, I see that "font" is defined (in the relevant sense) like so: > an assortment or set of type or characters all of one style and sometimes one size It is being used here to refer to an assortment of characters all of one style, which seems like a good match for the modern definition. In contrast, "script" has the following senses: 1(a) something written: "text" (b) an original or principal instrument or document (c) (1) "manuscript" (2) the written text of a stage play, screenplay, or broadcast 2(a) a style of printed letters that resembles handwriting (b) written characters: "handwriting" (c) "alphabet" 3 a plan of action (quoted words are how I've represented references to other dictionary entries) The only sense referring to the style or appearance of characters in a "script" is explicitly restricted to printed text. Perhaps the linguistic term you were looking for is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_shift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_shift ?

by Isamu 11y ago

galago 11y ago

What's the linguistic term for retroactively applying a word like this? Its like referring to a horse-drawn cart as a "medieval car". I don't think calligraphers would get too upset about it--and maybe contemporary English actually allows it. It is the reverse of how these things were thought of though in the past.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
> Its like referring to a horse-drawn cart as a "medieval car". I don't think calligraphers would get too upset about it--and maybe contemporary English actually allows it. I see it as more like referring to medieval nobles as "hunting with dogs", when the actual term in use at the time would have been "hounds". If you don't think it's weird for, say, a Russian guy to refer to ancient letter forms using a Russian word for that sort of category rather than "script", you also shouldn't think it's weird for English speakers to use their word rather than an archaism.
- galago 11y ago
  No, a 'font' is a tool for the mechanical representation of text. First with wood/metal, then with later technologies. Hand drawn letters are in scripts or styles. I think I've been too charitable with my words.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    As used, a "font" is a particular inventory of letter forms, distinguishing, say, ℂ from C, when both of those represent a platonic capital letter 'c'. That is the sense in which modern English speakers are applying it to inventories of letter forms in medieval writing. Checking Merriam-Webster, I see that "font" is defined (in the relevant sense) like so: > an assortment or set of type or characters all of one style and sometimes one size It is being used here to refer to an assortment of characters all of one style, which seems like a good match for the modern definition. In contrast, "script" has the following senses: 1(a) something written: "text" (b) an original or principal instrument or document (c) (1) "manuscript" (2) the written text of a stage play, screenplay, or broadcast 2(a) a style of printed letters that resembles handwriting (b) written characters: "handwriting" (c) "alphabet" 3 a plan of action (quoted words are how I've represented references to other dictionary entries) The only sense referring to the style or appearance of characters in a "script" is explicitly restricted to printed text. Perhaps the linguistic term you were looking for is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_shift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_shift ?