"Szelp, A. Sz." wrote: >Julian, if you look closely, it is not actually a turned s, but something >created with a turned s in mind. In the very sort of the alphabet, the >regular s has equal (or near-equal) top and bottom bowls. the "turned" one >has an emphasized upper bowl, which of course stems from the idea of a >turned s (as some fonts have a larger bowl lower bowl of s for balance), >but it is quite clearly not a turned s as identity, but rather something >_inspired_ by a turned s.
Quite clearly wrong! I'm afraid you're suffering from optical delusion. I actually thought the same when I first looked at it, but it's not so. Cut out the turned s; then cut out, say, the initial s of "sonant". Rotate it 180 degrees. They're identical, up to the tiny variations due to actual ink from metal type. (Beware that the ś immediately below is from a different fount, and *does* have more equal bowls. That's what confused me at first.) Of course, since this was printed in the age of metal type, it *has* to be a turned "s". Cutting a special type would cost far more, and as David pointed out in his original post, the reason for the absurd turned p and turned s was the the publishers weren't willing to cut the extra types to match the letters in the original hand-written script. -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.