I prefer TNR because it doesn't include a lousy Armenian.

hhp

One would think TITUS would have a better Arminian since it was partly designed by a language expert...go figure....That is if TNR has Armenian in it all. I presume TNR does not have Armenian in it at all, and you feel the TITUS adaptation for it is bad?

Yes, TNR does not include Armenian. There are many Armenian adaptations of Times, but none of them are any good (x-height colonialism/envy, too many serifs, enslaved "հ", too tight, etc. - the typical diseases).

Cyberbit's Armenian is not an adaptation, it's more like time-travel-dropping a medieval Armenian priest into a Reading University dormitory.

hhp

Funny you should say that. Isn't TITUS Cyberbit intended for medievalists?

If so, Times makes no sense.

hhp

What I liked about TITUS Cyberbit Basic was that it was less condensed than the Times New Roman in the sample. I presume that's also a feature of Adobe's Times Ten.

@hrant – Reckon it'll make sense if you ever write an article on medieval Armenian and the editor demands the English portion be set in TNR.

1) He'd have to give me extra free copies to shut me up about using Times, especially for such a topic.
2) Would you set an article about Ancient Rome in Trajan?

hhp

1. AIUI, some editors want everything incoming to be set in TNR, claiming it keeps their mind on the text.

2. Nope. Comic Sans and Papyrus.

claiming it keeps their mind on the text.

I give their mind more credit.

hhp