Why Roman typography is the most developed typography between other writing system?

[Nick Shinn]

…wholesale borrowing from, say, Greek…

Trissino (16th century) proposed omega for long “o”.
Not adopted, but his “j” and “v” were added.

Icenlandic has letters to differentiate two “th” sounds, but that practice died out elsewhere.

[dezcom]

Means, Need, Money

Commerce created a greater need for written/printed documents; Technology of industrial Revolution created the means; Money and notoriety were the motivation.

The countries with the greatest of these were more motivated and capable of pursuing it. They were the same countries who used the Latin script. The Dutch, the Spaniards, the French, the Italians, the Germans, and the English (and later the Americas) had motive and means.

[hrant]

that practice died out elsewhere.

It didn't die out, it was killed. By English cheapness.

hhp

[Chris Dean]

am i the only one that loves the irony of a question about “development” when it is posted using poor capitalization?

[Nick Shinn]

I repeat, the issue is NOT one of writing systems, because the Fraktur genre uses the Latin writing system, but the Western countries that used Fraktur did not develop their typography to the extent that those using the Antiqua did—with contrast of slant (roman vs. italic) and weight (regular vs. bold).

Would it not have been possible for a contrast-based typography using fraktur fonts to develop? After all, fraktur may be slanted and have varying weights.

[froo]

@ quadibloc:
I understand your idea, so I agree with non-Latin additions like ж, ч, ш. But I deeply disagree with the "Anglocentric" approach. For example: English, French and Polish/German letter j represents 3 different sounds - џ, ж, j (that can be found in Serbian). Which spellings to reform? When you propose adding the extra letter ы to the alphabet (which sound is quite rare in English, indeed), you save English spelling (inconsistent here), while razing broad and consistent use of y in Polish, Czech and Slovak, where it sounds like ы ...

Back to the topic: I think there have been means, good will and conducive atmosphere.

[quadibloc]

@froo:
You raise a good point. But I don't know how to address it.

If I add letters to the Latin alphabet in order to represent additional sounds in a phonetic manner, one sound being assigned to one letter, then clearly an assignment of sounds to letters is being made.

And, as you've pointed out, the pre-existing assignment of sounds to letters in different languages using the Latin alphabet differs. So, which letters to add and what sounds to assign to them would also differ.

I suppose that this could work, though, if the speakers of different languages reviewed their requirements independently, with the result being that some added letters - like some existing letters, most notably W in French - would not be used in all Latin-alphabet languages.

Note that I've tried to address both foreign-language transliteration and spelling reform; both areas have different needs, even if additional letters seeming to be useful is common to both.

[Maxim Zhukov]

The idea being to have something like the Shaw alphabet, but composed entirely of conventional and pre-existing letters. And with a few extra letters for non-English sounds like the German U-umlaut (also used in Chinese!) and the Russian yerry (Ыы).

Sounds like a project of an international phonematic alphabet proposed by Telingater in 1965.

[froo]

Wow, I have found this: The anti-absurd or phrenotypic English pronouncing & orthographical dictionary, from 1845 !

[oldnick]

Short answer: because Roman Law is subject to creative misinterpretation through the medium of language.

E.g., the creative, linguistic misinterpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which revolves around an implicit condition phrase, whose sole ambiguity revolves around a participle: intentionally impaired inference and the mystery of "being."

OTOH, George Zimmerman's defense fund is running dangerously low.

[quadibloc]

@froo:
Wow, I have found this: The anti-absurd or phrenotypic English pronouncing & orthographical dictionary, from 1845!
And, of course, one interesting thing about it that is immediately obvious to the people on this forum is that the many new symbols added to the alphabet were all formed by turning existing letters upside-down, which, of course, did not require the expensive cutting of new symbols in the lead type era.

[froo]

Indeed.
By the way, I don't remember the details, but always when it comes to question about the success of the Roman typography, I recall the story of the first printer of Istanbul: After the Battle of Vienna, the ruler of the Ottoman Empire began to realize the failure and backwardness of the state. Then a Hungarian convert (I don't remember what his name was) entered the scene, offering printing technology, that could address the desired educational and informational issues. Since the introduction of printing could threaten mass riots (there were 3000 copyists employed in Istanbul), the Sultan agreed to print only the clearly secular materials. As can be easily guessed, the project has not led to success ...

[quadibloc]

@froo:
Then a Hungarian convert (I don't remember what his name was) entered the scene, offering printing technology,

For a moment, I thought you might have meant Ohannis Mühendis-oğlu, but he isn't Hungarian. But I see it was Ibrahim Müteferrika that you meant.

[hrant]

Hovhannes Muhendisian -the first person able and allowed to print in Arabic script in the Ottoman empire- was Armenian. :-)

hhp

[quadibloc]

Yes. Not only is that ironic, but the spelling of his name that you used lets me learn that a noted modern composer is Armenian.

[John Hudson]

Hrant, Müteferrika preceded Muhendisian, but as I understand it there was a gap between them during which it was again forbidden to print Arabic script. They were both remarkable men.

[hrant]

I think the difference might have been that Muhendisian was allowed to print the Qur'aan. I'll ping the expert... :-)

hhp

[John Hudson]

One further note re. Müteferrika: his punchcutter is recorded as having been an Ottoman Jew. If anyone comes across any further information about this man, I would be very interested.

[hrant]

Thomas: Wow, what a great mini-lesson! Thanks.

hhp

[Peter Van Lancker]

Maybe try "neo-Carolingian" in stead of "Roman".

[froo]

The capital letters aren't neo-Carolingian.

[quadibloc]

Neither are the small letters, having already existed as uncial.

But the writing system we use now has both small letters and capital letters, so it's not the one the Romans used - so the point raised is valid.

However, I would agree that it is picky - the small letters also derived from Roman writing, if by a different path; it's not as if we're writing with twenty-six new symbols commissioned by Charlemagne.

Of course, he did commission a brand-new alphabet of his own (with twenty-four characters), but that one was used as a cipher for secure communications.

[hrant]

Just use "Latin".

hhp

[oldnick]

Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

[Thomas Milo]

Müteferrika was a Transylvanian Hungarian Unionist Protestant, who fled to the Ottoman Empire when the Austrian Catholic Habsburg Empire took over. Around that time he converted to Islam, which gave him access to Islamic script expertise, the key for creating acceptable Arabic typography for the Ottoman Empire. Previous printers of Arabic in Europe and (potential) Arabic printers in the Middle East (Jews, Greeks and Armenians in Istanbul and Syriac and and Catholic Christians in Syria-Lebanon) did not have this expertise - which apparently was very difficult to acquire for non-Muslims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lJsfUQ-qqw
The Ottoman authorities were keenly aware of the strategic importance of what we would now call Information Technology, but they were less then impressed by the graphic atrocities resulting from unfamiliarity with Islamic script practice. According to Orlin Sabev, the Ottoman Authorities had no issue acquiring any technology from unbelievers as long as it served their purpose: the Ottoman armed forces were the first in the world to be fully equipped with fire arms, therefore opposition to printing was not motivated by Islam but by functionality: type without the correct script architecture was useless. The Ottomans were in fact keen on mass producing the Koran, if possible using printing technology, as that could be a powerful tool in spreading Islam (unlike the Catholic authorities, who discouraged the laymen to read the Holy Books). However, although Müteferrika's type was structurally sound - unlike Eurabic and Syrian-Lebanese efforts, which broke many rules of Islamic script architecture - the calligraphic quality was not up to Koranic standards. That is why it was not allowed to be used for religious work. Consequently, Müteferrika printed mainly strategic materials (dictionaries, atlases, grammars, descriptions of foreign lands, etc). Following the closure of Müteferrika's printing shop, work continued with the same or very similarly structured typefaces. According to Uğur Derman, Ottoman Sultan Selim III was so concerned about the low quality of Arabic type, that he ordered the best Ottoman typographer/punch-cutter of his realm - yes! an Armenian - Poghos Araboğlu (http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/g_brief_08.php) to cut punches after the calligraphy of Hattat Deli Osman Efendi (quoting Derman off the top of my head). This produced a much better result, but it was indeed the Armenian Hovhannes/Ohanes Mühendisyan/Mühendisoğlu who created the breakthrough for the acceptance of Arabic type throughout the Ottoman domains (1866).

Summarizing, there was a three-stage development of Arabic typography with the required script architecture, each of them the result of interaction by a typographic using Western technology with direct access to Islamic script expertise:
1. 1730's - Müteferrika, a polymath familiar with typography but most likely not an experienced printer himself, who was able to learn the basics of Arabic calligraphy (from experts) after his conversion to Islam, but he did not succeed in getting the aesthetics right. He only worked on naskh/nesih, which he managed to reproduce structurally correct, but not well shaped.
2. 1790's - Araboğlu, a famous Armenian printer, was ordered to work with Deli Osman. I am still studying the nature of his work, but clearly it was not the breakthrough. It is remarkable that, apart from naskh/nesih, he worked on (nas)ta`liq - one of the key scripts of the period.
3. 1860's - Mühendisoğlu, the dean of Armenian printers and creator of impressive (nas)ta`liq type, closely collaborated with the top calligrapher of his day, Mustafa Izzet Efendi on naskh/nesih. I do not know yet what the nature of their relationship and collaboration was. From the material in my possession it is visible that, though Mühendisoğlu cut all the necessary sorts for a perfect rendering of Islamic script structure, his mastery of the system was imperfect. He frequently uses correct forms in positions where they do not belong. Clearly it took an Islamic upbringing to master this writing system.

None of them ever printed the Koran, but I do have a Lebanese printed Gospel dating from the 1890's in a Mühendisyan (derived?) typeface.

The first typeset Koran was printed in Russia in the end of the 18th century probably by and/or for the Saint Petersburg Tatar Turkic community, with type imported from Germany that had all the typical European defects. The same type was still in use in Kazan (capital of Tatarstan) in the early 1990's. The same typographic style is used by Russian orientalists for Persian texts, notably the first volume of the two part Персидско-Русский Словарь by М.А. Гаффаров. It forms the basis of the persian flavour os simplified naskh, called kitabi.

The first typeset Koran in the Arabic world was printed in Egypt after the collapse of the Ottoman world, in 1924. Apparently, the Ottoman objections against inferior script architecture were dropped in favour of orthographic precision (tajweed), see:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9225177/Cairo_Koran_Orthographic_Rules_FINALoct2...
The typeface used for this Koran conforms dramatically better to Arabic script architecture than what is used by Dutch, German and French printers. It is claimed to be cut after the handwriting of the great Ottoman calligrapher Abdülaziz Efendi. However, while there is a visible relationship between Mühendisoğlu's nask/nesih and Mustafa Izzet Efendi's calligraphy, there is no such match between this typeface and the hand of Aziz. Moreover, e.g., a publication printed in Vienna (Theodor Nöldeke's Zur Grammatic des classischen Arabisch) in 1897 uses a very similar, Mühendisoğlu-inspired typeface - minus the necessary Islamic script architecture: like in Mühendisoğlu's case, all the shapes seem to be there, but, typical for Europeans, the awareness of the system was absent.