4 ms·

I had heard of the California case, but never seen the layout. It is odd that the U and J should be sent to the outskirts based on the practice of early English

by cafard 3y ago

I had heard of the California case, but never seen the layout. It is odd that the U and J should be sent to the outskirts based on the practice of early English printers: the earliest English printers had worked a good three hundred years before anyone was setting English text in California.

deaddodo 3y ago
I don't understand the point you're making. What would English printers' practices in the 1500s have to do with (a specific subset of) American printers in the 1800s? They're working off of the same subject language, that doesn't necessarily mean they're informed by the former. It could be differences in Standard American and Queen's English, changes in the general language over 300 years, differences in lexicography, etc.
- tivert 3y ago
  > What would English printers' practices in the 1500s have to do with (a specific subset of) American printers in the 1800s? They're working off of the same subject language, that doesn't necessarily mean they're informed by the former. According to the article, it's a "modification of a previously popular case, the Italic..." It's plausible that decisions made in the 1500s carried forward. Sort of like how we all type on QUERTY keyboards, even though we're using machines without hammers that can jam if we type too fast. >> It is odd that the U and J should be sent to the outskirts based on the practice of early English printers: the earliest English printers had worked a good three hundred years before anyone was setting English text in California. > It could be differences in Standard American and Queen's English, changes in the general language over 300 years, differences in lexicography, etc. I'm speculating, but I'm pretty sure it's changes in orthography. I think this is what happened: 1) The order of the capitals in the case (without U/J) was carried over from a 1500s-era case. 2) They were missing from that case because 1500s-era printers probably didn't use capital U/J at all. They probably followed the convention of using I for J and V for U (because Latin, e.g. CORPVS IVRIS CIVILIS for CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS, http://www.cyclopaedia.org/1612/1612corpvs.html http://www.cyclopaedia.org/1612/1612corpvs.html). 3) American printers used capital U/J so the designer of this case incorporated them in an unobtrusive spot, that wouldn't disrupt the overall flow. Sort of like how newly-invented keys are never inserted in the middle of a keyboard, only around the edges. Edit: the placement of U/J after Z appears to date back to at least 1683: http://www.alembicpress.co.uk/Alembicprs/MXUCASE.HTM http://www.alembicpress.co.uk/Alembicprs/MXUCASE.HTM.
  - cafard 3y ago
    Between 1500 and 1845, James I and II had reigned over Scotland, England, and Ireland, Samuel Johnson had published his dictionary, and the United States had formed a "more perfect union". The changes in orthography had taken place well before the California case.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > The changes in orthography had taken place well before the California case. Yes. I'd imagine there were lots of steps in between. I mean, it's not like a modern computer QWERTY keyboard is directly based on the original typewriter. They're based off an IBM PC keyboard, which was probably based off of some IBM typewriter, .... and then eventually you trace back to the original, but QWERTY carried through all of them.
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    > According to the article, it's a "modification of a previously popular case, the Italic..." It's plausible that decisions made in the 1500s carried forward. Sort of like how we all type on QUERTY keyboards, even though we're using machines without hammers that can jam if we type too fast. There were literally hundreds of typecase configurations: http://www.alembicpress.co.uk/Alembicprs/SELBLNK.HTM http://www.alembicpress.co.uk/Alembicprs/SELBLNK.HTM The English was neither the first, nor the direct ancestor to the California Job Case. I'm not an expert on the subject, but just from quick research, it would seem the American cases extend from the Germanic and Romantic cases, not the English ones. So again, what would a 1500s typecase have to do with a late 1800s case developed in a completely different nation? Other than a shared lingua, that is. Hint: the oblique point trying to be made here is....by the 1800s, the US had long diverged from England/the UK and so it's a weird assumption to be made that they would inherently do something "the English way"; let alone in a far archaic manner.

by cafard 3y ago

deaddodo 3y ago

I don't understand the point you're making. What would English printers' practices in the 1500s have to do with (a specific subset of) American printers in the 1800s? They're working off of the same subject language, that doesn't necessarily mean they're informed by the former. It could be differences in Standard American and Queen's English, changes in the general language over 300 years, differences in lexicography, etc.

tivert 3y ago
> What would English printers' practices in the 1500s have to do with (a specific subset of) American printers in the 1800s? They're working off of the same subject language, that doesn't necessarily mean they're informed by the former. According to the article, it's a "modification of a previously popular case, the Italic..." It's plausible that decisions made in the 1500s carried forward. Sort of like how we all type on QUERTY keyboards, even though we're using machines without hammers that can jam if we type too fast. >> It is odd that the U and J should be sent to the outskirts based on the practice of early English printers: the earliest English printers had worked a good three hundred years before anyone was setting English text in California. > It could be differences in Standard American and Queen's English, changes in the general language over 300 years, differences in lexicography, etc. I'm speculating, but I'm pretty sure it's changes in orthography. I think this is what happened: 1) The order of the capitals in the case (without U/J) was carried over from a 1500s-era case. 2) They were missing from that case because 1500s-era printers probably didn't use capital U/J at all. They probably followed the convention of using I for J and V for U (because Latin, e.g. CORPVS IVRIS CIVILIS for CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS, http://www.cyclopaedia.org/1612/1612corpvs.html http://www.cyclopaedia.org/1612/1612corpvs.html). 3) American printers used capital U/J so the designer of this case incorporated them in an unobtrusive spot, that wouldn't disrupt the overall flow. Sort of like how newly-invented keys are never inserted in the middle of a keyboard, only around the edges. Edit: the placement of U/J after Z appears to date back to at least 1683: http://www.alembicpress.co.uk/Alembicprs/MXUCASE.HTM http://www.alembicpress.co.uk/Alembicprs/MXUCASE.HTM.
- cafard 3y ago
  Between 1500 and 1845, James I and II had reigned over Scotland, England, and Ireland, Samuel Johnson had published his dictionary, and the United States had formed a "more perfect union". The changes in orthography had taken place well before the California case.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > The changes in orthography had taken place well before the California case. Yes. I'd imagine there were lots of steps in between. I mean, it's not like a modern computer QWERTY keyboard is directly based on the original typewriter. They're based off an IBM PC keyboard, which was probably based off of some IBM typewriter, .... and then eventually you trace back to the original, but QWERTY carried through all of them.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  > According to the article, it's a "modification of a previously popular case, the Italic..." It's plausible that decisions made in the 1500s carried forward. Sort of like how we all type on QUERTY keyboards, even though we're using machines without hammers that can jam if we type too fast. There were literally hundreds of typecase configurations: http://www.alembicpress.co.uk/Alembicprs/SELBLNK.HTM http://www.alembicpress.co.uk/Alembicprs/SELBLNK.HTM The English was neither the first, nor the direct ancestor to the California Job Case. I'm not an expert on the subject, but just from quick research, it would seem the American cases extend from the Germanic and Romantic cases, not the English ones. So again, what would a 1500s typecase have to do with a late 1800s case developed in a completely different nation? Other than a shared lingua, that is. Hint: the oblique point trying to be made here is....by the 1800s, the US had long diverged from England/the UK and so it's a weird assumption to be made that they would inherently do something "the English way"; let alone in a far archaic manner.