Typophile

Letterforms and Language

superassociates

hey all.

i thought you guys may have some good thoughts regarding my thesis, so here i am.

basically, i think it’s impossible to remove the linguistic implications from a letterform and see it as a random shape. granted, there are certain criteria you’d have to follow such as not counting dingbats etc. im talking straight up, looking at a letter “A” and thinking “i dont get it.” of course, this is can be influenced by context, scale, etc. also what happens when you enhance the basic form a letter with dimension, time, etc, where youre arent changing the basic structure, just adding to it. but i guess what im wondering is if you have any initial thoughts or resources you think i should check out. anything would be appreciated. if youd like some more in depth info on what im working on, you can contact me directly if you want or if everyones ok with some lengthy posts i can respond on here.

thanks a lot.

‹ ATypI 2006 Ecommerce host ›
ebensorkin

Maybe you had better explain what you mean a bit more - This first post is a bit hard to grasp. Do you have athesis position already?

Norbert Florendo

> basically, i think it’s impossible to remove the linguistic implications from a letterform and see it as a random shape.

Hi Alex,
yup... you need to explain what direction you are taking as Eben suggested. And yes, you can remove liguistic implications (by this do you actually mean phonetic associations?) from letterforms, but it takes training both eye and mind.

BTW — your “fixing up BRB” on your web site is refreshing.

————————————————————————-
Yes, I’m old, but I’ll be right back!

superassociates

apologies if i glaze over some thoughts, ive been going over this for a while.

ok so when you look at a letter A, you will only see it as a letter A, whether it’s being used in text or as a design elements. you’ll still understand that what you’re looking at is a letterform. the only kink in that is adding dimension, texture, etc. to the shape. like for example, looking at a 3-dimensional A from the top.

also, i guess i should add the relevance ie. why i’m even asking.

our capacity to read letterforms has flourished through the inundation of messages we receive and the proliferation of typefaces that challenge traditional letterform shapes. im not saying they all look good or anything, but our understanding of these shapes has been enriched. even with things like “wheel of fortune” we seek out letterforms. seeing a bunch of sticks on the ground and thinking “that looks like a K.” we’re just raised to search for messages.

this all leads to a broader range within which we can deliver meaning and distress type and still create clear messages.

at what point do these letterforms cease to retain their linguistic value? i believe this only occurs when elements are added to the basic shape of what defines letterforms.

ebensorkin

> i believe this only occurs when elements are added to the basic shape of what defines letterforms.

A thesis! Excellent. Let me re-phrase what you have written & see if I get you here. You are saying that - there is a degree to which all ’a’s are ’a’s and that may be more or less (& maybe more or less depending on the reader?) You are also saying that in general we are expanding our willingness to see an ’a’ over time due to exposure to increasingly less ’a’-like ’a’ shapes. You are also saying that there is a point at which the ’a’ stops being recognized as such. It ceases to be a recognized as a letter.

> i believe this only occurs when elements are added to the basic shape of what defines letterforms.

You are saying this happens when too many features of ’a’ ness are lost. This might be degenration, fading, etc - or it might be an extreme

Captured from web.archive.org on 30 Aug 2008. view this capture