I think they initially had tittles to differentiate majuscule from minuscule, the umlaut or diaeresis performs a task in many languages (Albanian, Basque, Catalan, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Icelandic, Inari Sámi, Italian, Malagasy, Portuguese, Skolt Sámi, Slovak, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish), not just to the i, which in Turkish, Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar and Tatar co-exists with the dotless ı.
Tim

Alessandro, Translation into English, Arabic, Malay or Persian Please?!

Aziz, I think Alessandro put up a sample of Turkish to demonstrate why there is a need for the tittle.
Tim

Laila saida, Tim is right, it was just a sample of the need for the dotless i.

Aziz, you’re thinking of nothing less than alphabet reform, something I’ve been pursuing (for Latin) since 1998, and I can assure you: you will encouter hordes of loud, outraged pseudo-intellectuals! Just try to do your own thing, and try to discover and nurture people who can actually think clearly. Without a king, and muzzled by democracy, there can be no quick, large-scale improvements.

hhp

As far as alphabet reform (at least for English), there have been many attempts, including Deseret and Unifon, neither of which have a very broad following, but they make interesting studies.

Turkish Latin is itself a reformed alphabet, wherein the entire language was transferred from one writing system to another by decree, But, as evidenced by the complex system of accents the Latin alphabet isn’t particularly well suited to Turkish on its own.

It’s not particularly well suited to English either! :-)

BTW, almost all reforms have involved spelling. To me that’s REALLY hopeless. The other kind (what I work on) is purely graphic reform, which is a very different animal, not least in that it doesn’t hinge on any central authority.

hhp

The story on the i and j, IIRC, is that as black letter, especially textura evolved, it became hard to distinguish an i from the stems of the n, m, etc. And to distinguish it, they put a diagonal line above it. This evolved into the dot. The j was originally just a swashed i at the beginning of words. It was adopted in languages other than Latin, such as English, for a different sound than the i, and so became a separate letter.

The “j” was also used as a terminal “stopper” against forging lc Roman numerals.
Don’t ask me to elaborate, that’s all I know. (Thamus, again. :-)

hhp

Hrant, your sayıngs are touchıngly to the poınt.

William Berkson, ıs ıt dıffıcult to dıstınguısh the dotless ı ın thıs wrıting (ın thıs too old font)

> Turkısh Latın ıs ıtself a reformed alphabet, whereın the entıre language was transferred from one wrıtıng system to another by decree, But, as evıdenced by the complex system of accents the Latın alphabet ısn’t partıcularly well suıted to Turkısh on ıts own.

Cuttlefısh, That’s how Natıonalısts served theır Natıons?!

Thanks All wıth Flowers

>wrıting (ın thıs too old font)

Reads wnting at a glance, it is remarkable how different that copy looks without dots.
Tim

wnting does not exist in English?!
Guess there’s not a single word in English that starts with wn?!
So wnting will be taken as writing even if misspelled?!

>not a single word in English that starts with wn

But many that end in wn: brown, town, gown, known, shown, thrown etc. And can be in the middle: browning, knowns, etc.

And no word ends with ri?!

I added the bit about being in the middle while you posted. The point is not that you can or cannot puzzle it out, but that trying to puzzle it out slows you down. The dot on the i adds efficiency.

Browriing?! knowris?!
> The dot on the i adds effeciency.
Yet to be proven?!

>Yet to be proven?!

Yes, like almost everything about readability.

But I can tell you that to me there is no question that
’wnting’ does not read the same as ’writing’. It looks more like ’wanting’ with a missing ’a’. I would have to slow down to puzzle it out from context.

> wnting

Good one!

I think Welsh might have “wn” - it has everything else.

hhp

Bylchau rhwng llythrennau

Letter spacing:)
Please don’t ask me much more than this it came from a guide to bilingual setting.
Tim

wrıting = wanting?!
wnting = wanting?!
Which one?
What is applicable to English is applicable to other languages?!

> Bylchau rhwng llythrennau
Think dotted “I” will be more Illuminating?!
Flowers

By one glance (not 2), which one of these is correct?
1 No IIl-feeling
2 No I1I-feeling
3 No lII-feeling
4 No lIl-feeling
5 No Ill-feeling
6 No IlI-feeling
7 No Ill-feeling
8 No 1Il-feeling
9 No l1l-feeling
Happy Puzzling

> Think dotted “I” will be more Illuminating?!

No, just harder to linespace.

hhp

Jenson’s typeface had a tiny dot above the i, to the right — an apology for a dot, really, way smaller than his diamond-shaped period.
Was he planning to remove it entirely, with his next face? Then perhaps we wouldn’t have dots on our i’s

As I said in another thread, I’m pretty sure that was to allow the compositor not to have to use an “fi” ligature. I’m of two minds whether that was clever or weak.

hhp

> I’m of two minds whether that was clever or weak.

Clever for the Cross-eyed?! Weak for the one-eyed?!

5 and 7

Does the T have a serif proud of the body, how short lived was the dot?

Tim

... how short lived was the dot?

Coz the Cross-eyed and the One-eyed are short on the list.

> Think dotted “I” will be more Illuminating?!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/typeoff/286105976/

hhp

Hrant, the above-mentioned site is inaccessible here, Can you explain in words.
Or point to another site? You know, I live in the WrongoWrongo Island!

Flickr is banned in Iraq? Not a huge loss. :-)

The photo I was pointing to is by our Dan Reynolds.
Please instant-message or email him to get permission
for me to post the image in-thread.

hhp

Hrant, you (or anyone else) may post images from my flickr space on Typophile.

But, just to save time, I’ve gone ahead and uploaded the image myself. Thanks for the heads up.

Thanks Dan!

hhp