4 ms·
'ſ' is just an 's'. It's a typographic variation carrying no semantics. The proper way to reproduce it in a new medium is simply to use 's' everywhere. To do
by dfranke 16y ago
'ſ' is just an 's'. It's a typographic variation carrying no semantics. The proper way to reproduce it in a new medium is simply to use 's' everywhere. To do this is no more unfaithful to the original work than using Times Roman on the screen when the original was printed in Caslon.
- ugh 16y agoWhat does “proper” mean? The author merely says that he decided to use the long s in one of the texts he quoted, he makes no claim that everybody should quote texts containing the long s just like that. I can see nothing wrong with that as long as the author doesn’t claim that to be the only “proper” way to do it. (He does not.) This is what he says about his choice in the linked article: “I’ve copied out one of my favourite stories below (complete with long s for authenticity) […]” To me, this points to an explicitly aesthetic decision, not an invention of a rule for the proper use of the long s in quoted texts.
- crux 16y agoYou seem to be completely missing the point of this article. What are you contending? That there was no difference between s and ſ, and that they were used in free variation? Or that there is no need to know anything about ſ today because it is no longer in use? In either case, as I said, you've missed the point.
- dfranke 16y agoI'm taking issue with the decision stated in the first sentence: "In my previous post about the grand old trade of basket-making I included several extracts from some 18th century books, in which I preserved the long s (ſ) as used in the original printed texts".
- crux 16y agoTo what end? Do you suspect that the author thinks there was another letter of the alphabet in the 18th century?
- dfranke 16y agoNo. I merely think he's missing the forest for the trees by preserving one obsolete typographic detail in a historical text yet translating the whole thing into HTML with minimal styling. This is somewhat akin to completely remodeling a 100-year-old building yet insisting on preserving the original knob-and-tube electrical wiring for authenticity -- you lose all the original charm yet you're still stuck replacing fuses twice a day and offending your readers every time the word 'succor' appears.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ugh 16y agoSo “proper” just refers to your aesthetic preference, not to any actual rule?
- dfranke 16y agoUh, somewhere in between, I think. I'm contending that one way is logical, conventional, and clear, and the other way is illogical, odd, and confusing. I think that's a stronger statement than just an aesthetic preference, but I'm not citing anyone else's prescription.
- ugh 16y agoI don’t get it. Seems awfully petty. It just a blogger and what he did is not in any way wrong. I could understand you if he had made any statement to the effect that everyone should do it like him but he absolutely did not.
- celoyd 16y agoI agree, but I think the author does too. As far as I see, there is no claim that we should reproduce the long s as such in quotations where it’s not at issue. It’s only presented as a matter of historical interest. (Before this, I had thought that in certain times and places it was not used at the end of syllables, which would have carried information in the same way that hyphenation does.)
- dfranke 16y agoAs far as I see, there is no claim that we should reproduce the long s as such in quotations where it’s not at issue. He not merely claimed, but did, exactly that in the article linked from the first sentence.
- celoyd 16y agoGiven that the blog is about fetishizing the look and feel of old writing and inscription, I’d say it is at issue there.