"Richard Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In later times, even with computerized font faces, it's my impression that italics and bold are not quite suitable for formal writing.
Italics are extremely rare in the Chinese academic articles and books I use, whether published on the mainland, Taiwan, or Hong Kong, Rather than italics, if aesthetic effect is desired a cursive-style font is used, and for marking titles, brackets (U+300A/B or U+FE3D/E) or a wavy line (U+FE4F or U+FE34) is used. Generally speaking, italicization violates the fundamentally "square" nature of the Chinese character. Bold can be seen in larger headings in such formal writing, however, particularly in newer publications. But just as common, I would say, is the use of differently-sized fonts instead of bold type, not just for headings, but to set off notes, block quotations, etc. Allen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Richard Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 4:45 PM Subject: Re: Problem with Arial Unicode MS font for BOLD/ITALICS in PDF > On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 02:44 , Kenneth Whistler wrote: > > > What is true is that use of italicized text is unusual > > in Chinese or Japanese body text--certainly not with the frequency > > or same range of functions as occurs in Latin typography. > > Bold text is not that unusual, however. > > In precomputer Chinese, it would be very unusual to see italics or bold. > The place of both is filled with point size differences, brackets/quotes > of various styles, underlining (straight or saw-toothed, single or > double). In later times, even with computerized font faces, it's my > impression that italics and bold are not quite suitable for formal > writing. Of course, in pop e-print, nearly everything that can be done > to a character is done ... including Bold-Ital-Outline-Shadow ... > > >
