3 ms·

He doesn't mention that many people have identical handwritten "u" and "n" (both written "и"). This barely matters at all; context will tell you what symbol is

He doesn't mention that many people have identical handwritten "u" and "n" (both written "и"). This barely matters at all; context will tell you what symbol is being used, just like it does in prose, and most material is typeset. It really is a very bad idea to use lowercase Ls, though.

sfpotter 2y ago
There's nothing wrong with l.
mkl 2y ago
ℓ is totally fine.
- johongo 2y ago
  It sticks out. I prefer a subtle hook to the right at the bottom.
  - layer8 2y ago
    That’s awfully close to an iota though.
  - Timwi 2y ago
    You say that like it's a bad thing. Sticking out is good for distinctiveness and hence readability.
adrian_b 2y ago
The original Carolingian lowercase "l" from 1200 years ago had a small right hook at the inferior end, which made it easily distinguishable from other similar letters, like uppercase "I". Unfortunately after the invention of printing there has been a bad fashion in serif typefaces that made lowercase "l' too similar with other letters, by replacing the traditional hook with a serif identical to the serifs of all letters that end on the baseline, so that the only difference from uppercase "I" remained in a triangular left serif added to the upper end. Even worse, in the 19th century, after sans-serif typefaces became popular, most of them have simplified lowercase "l" even more, making it almost identical with uppercase "I". Nevertheless, while many of the typefaces used today follow the bad styles of serif or sans-serif designs with hard to distinguish lowercase "l", there exists a decent number of typefaces which have returned to the original form of lowercase "l", with a right hook at the lower end, which is easy to differentiate from any other letters. I am using almost only this kind of typefaces. Examples are Palatino Sans and FF Meta, but there are many others. Also all recent monospace typefaces intended for programming have such lowerspace "l" (being a narrow letter, in monospace typefaces lowercase "l" also has a left slab serif at the upper end, to expand its width). In handwriting, the best solution for lowercase "l" is not to make it cursive like suggested in the parent article, but to make it with a low right hook, like in its original ancient form.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > The original Carolingian lowercase "l" from 1200 years ago had a small right hook at the inferior end, which made it easily distinguishable from other similar letters, like uppercase "I". It might help a little. "Easily distinguishable" is dramatically overselling things. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Minuscule_caroline.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Minuscul... I, capital and lowercase, also has a serif hooking to the right at the bottom of the stroke. Look at the first line beginning with a big red I. It says "Iterum autem pilatus locutus ẽ. ad illos volens". The line above it says "Et homicidium missus In carcerem;". How much difference do you see between the capital I in "In carcerem" and the lowercase L in "pilatus"? It's easy to distinguish lowercase L from lowercase i because L is taller. Capital I is only slightly different. (I should note that wikipedia's page on Carolingian minuscule also includes an image of a page of written Slovene. I couldn't really use that as an example, because without any knowledge of Slovene I can't reliably identify the letters. But I think that goes to show that the alphabet by itself doesn't reach the level of perfect unambiguity.) I'm interested to see that all Ses look the same. At some point we got word-final "s", but this was clearly not that point.
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    Perhaps this is because I am used to it, but for me the lowercase "l"s from your example are impossible to confuse with any other letter. For me the hooks are very visible and clearly distinct from any other kind of stroke termination. The serif at the lower end of capital "I" is bilateral symmetrical, besides having a flat termination, so it looks very different from the asymmetric and curved right hook on lowercase "l". Also in my handwriting, I write lowercase "l" with a right hook and uppercase "I" with serifs, making them impossible to confuse.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > The serif at the lower end of capital "I" is bilateral symmetrical, besides having a flat termination No, look at the capital "I" that I indicated in my comment. It has neither of those qualities.
card_zero 2y ago
That reminds me of mimi numinum niuium minimi munium nimium uini muniminum imminui uiui minimum uolunt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography) I guess blackletter script was an obstacle to mathematics (and reading).

sfpotter 2y ago

There's nothing wrong with l.

mkl 2y ago

ℓ is totally fine.

johongo 2y ago
It sticks out. I prefer a subtle hook to the right at the bottom.
- layer8 2y ago
  That’s awfully close to an iota though.
- Timwi 2y ago
  You say that like it's a bad thing. Sticking out is good for distinctiveness and hence readability.

adrian_b 2y ago

The original Carolingian lowercase "l" from 1200 years ago had a small right hook at the inferior end, which made it easily distinguishable from other similar letters, like uppercase "I". Unfortunately after the invention of printing there has been a bad fashion in serif typefaces that made lowercase "l' too similar with other letters, by replacing the traditional hook with a serif identical to the serifs of all letters that end on the baseline, so that the only difference from uppercase "I" remained in a triangular left serif added to the upper end. Even worse, in the 19th century, after sans-serif typefaces became popular, most of them have simplified lowercase "l" even more, making it almost identical with uppercase "I". Nevertheless, while many of the typefaces used today follow the bad styles of serif or sans-serif designs with hard to distinguish lowercase "l", there exists a decent number of typefaces which have returned to the original form of lowercase "l", with a right hook at the lower end, which is easy to differentiate from any other letters. I am using almost only this kind of typefaces. Examples are Palatino Sans and FF Meta, but there are many others. Also all recent monospace typefaces intended for programming have such lowerspace "l" (being a narrow letter, in monospace typefaces lowercase "l" also has a left slab serif at the upper end, to expand its width). In handwriting, the best solution for lowercase "l" is not to make it cursive like suggested in the parent article, but to make it with a low right hook, like in its original ancient form.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> The original Carolingian lowercase "l" from 1200 years ago had a small right hook at the inferior end, which made it easily distinguishable from other similar letters, like uppercase "I". It might help a little. "Easily distinguishable" is dramatically overselling things. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Minuscule_caroline.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Minuscul... I, capital and lowercase, also has a serif hooking to the right at the bottom of the stroke. Look at the first line beginning with a big red I. It says "Iterum autem pilatus locutus ẽ. ad illos volens". The line above it says "Et homicidium missus In carcerem;". How much difference do you see between the capital I in "In carcerem" and the lowercase L in "pilatus"? It's easy to distinguish lowercase L from lowercase i because L is taller. Capital I is only slightly different. (I should note that wikipedia's page on Carolingian minuscule also includes an image of a page of written Slovene. I couldn't really use that as an example, because without any knowledge of Slovene I can't reliably identify the letters. But I think that goes to show that the alphabet by itself doesn't reach the level of perfect unambiguity.) I'm interested to see that all Ses look the same. At some point we got word-final "s", but this was clearly not that point.
- adrian_b 2y ago
  Perhaps this is because I am used to it, but for me the lowercase "l"s from your example are impossible to confuse with any other letter. For me the hooks are very visible and clearly distinct from any other kind of stroke termination. The serif at the lower end of capital "I" is bilateral symmetrical, besides having a flat termination, so it looks very different from the asymmetric and curved right hook on lowercase "l". Also in my handwriting, I write lowercase "l" with a right hook and uppercase "I" with serifs, making them impossible to confuse.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > The serif at the lower end of capital "I" is bilateral symmetrical, besides having a flat termination No, look at the capital "I" that I indicated in my comment. It has neither of those qualities.

card_zero 2y ago

That reminds me of mimi numinum niuium minimi munium nimium uini muniminum imminui uiui minimum uolunt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography) I guess blackletter script was an obstacle to mathematics (and reading).