Proper Names - Definition

Hello, I'm back.

>Well, since this particular digression was about whether your decision not to use the spell checker or a dictionary or to proofread your posts was deliberate, I take it from your comment above that it was indeed deliberate.

Gosh, I'm getting lost here ..... Has anyone got a spare brain they're not using? Mine's knackered !!!!! :)

Right, first thing, I do use the spell checker and I do proof read my posts. Before I started using the spell checker I didn't notice it so I don't think it can be called a deliberate decision not to use it. It could be called a deliberate decision not to have checked my words with a dictionary but the initial spelling mistakes themselves I think could be called an accident, or at least nondeliberate ..... but ...... as you noted, this is a digression. I've hunted back through our posts to find the origin of this debate and I think it stems from my statement in Post 58:-

"Incidentally, I still fail to see the connection between my accidental bad spelling on this forum and the deliberate use of incorrect grammar in a finished work of art."

Has that been answered somewhere amongst the mass conglomeration of words permeating this thread?

>Actually, I don't even agree with you that designing is art.

Mmmm, did I state or imply such a thing? Perhaps I did. That subject perhaps needs a thread of its own.

>..... find an appropriate forum. This is a typography forum.

Oh cripes, you mean I've placed this thread on the wrong forum? Don't tell me I'm gonna have to start all over again somewhere else. Nooooooo!!!

>I don't know why you wouldn't expect to be challenged on your views, but that's the impression I've got from your posts, and comments like "shouldn't we be discussing the use of lower case for proper names?" and that "*that* is what this thread is supposed to be about" seem to me to be expressing a desire to limit the scope of the thread.

Do you know, I think you'd make a darn good politician. They are excellent at answering questions and sticking to the point (cough).

Sorry, I don't mind a certain amount of wondering but I'm trying to keep these posts short. I think there's folks out there snoring now (and keeping everyone else in the office awake).

>I'm not saying it's worked because it's poor - I'm saying it worked because you understood what it meant and you found it memorable, for whatever reason.

Yes, but the reasons I understood what it meant and found it memorable were .......?

Answer: I've heard of London and I think the logo is poor. It still begs the question 'What's the point in producing good art?'.

Incidentally, I was in London last week, my first proper visit, and it's looking in darn good condition. Wonderfull architecture. Wouldn't like to work and live there though.

>Also, you may well have given it wider exposure by discussing it here ......

Well, if this kind of exposure is good I rest my case. What's the point in good art?

>As I said above, I don't regard logos as art - they are a commercial tool and I think you're missing the point by rating them solely by whether they meet your (somewhat selective) standards of grammar.

I think it's unfair to suggest that my standards are 'somewhat selective' or limited because I actually do have a limit. Of course logos are a commercial tool, but perhaps you could say that about any art or design (where money's involved).

Perhaps what I should do is go back to art school and just slap anything down and see what marks I get. As long I can dream up some fancy explanation for my designs, like 'I'm looking behind the subject' or 'It's a statement on post-modernist life in the 21st century' ..... oh yes .... that's a good one ...... I'm sure they'd buy that one.

Amazingly, I happened to read that post (after skipping the previous 40 or so).

I think Dominic understands unicase well enough. I would have thought it was a requirement for all the glyphs to have the same height, but I can's swear to it. Peignot has a kind of unicase lowercase, and does have some height variations within it, but it seems to be an exception. Certainly when I did unicase alternates for Hypatia Sans, I made them all the same height, but borrowed letterforms from both the small caps and lowercase.

Cheers,

T

>You mean 'unicase' doesn't actually mean unicase?

No, it means exactly what it says - it is a font with only one case, though the design of the glyphs borrows from the forms typically used for lowercase and uppercase. My previous post wasn't accurate - while all the glyphs usually have the same height, on reflection there's no reason they have to. (None that I'm aware of, that is. Maybe Thomas could comment.) Using such a font, you cannot capitalise words in the accepted sense. I guess you could increase the point size of a letter, but that would seem to me to defeat the point of using such a font in the first place.

Since I mentioned Hypatia Sans, I should point out that the unicase alphabet is only one of many stylistic sets and the font has normal uppercase and lowercase alphabets too.

Richard,

At the time, it was considered the same way as your own "iPod" solution. I don't see it any differently. It might be interesting to see how Apple treats it.

Neil

Sorry, haven't got time at the moment to answer your post fully Dominic, and won't have this week, but I had to join in with your interesting question about 'iPod' starting a sentence. Yes, good one, I hadn't actually thought about that problem. 'iPod' (see, there's my answer already) is a logo and I don't think you can change logos (don't know whether I should be placing inverted commas around it all the time though). Also, just as I can accept it as representing a proper name so can I accept it as starting a sentence. At least it looks more acceptable at the beginning of a sentence than 'ipod'.

>I actually meant those fonts that mix typically upper and lower case forms to produce an alphabet of even height.

You mean 'unicase' doesn't actually mean unicase? It has the same fault in its meaning as 'unisex'?

I think 'unisex' actually means unistyle, so likewise 'unicase' actually means uniheight. Crumbs, why do some people insist on making life more confusing than it actually is? (In this case I don't mean you Dominic).

Neil, that is a mighty tough problem you had there with 'de Bary' and right now I don't know what my solution would be. I will have a think about it.

Ahh, the age of my book learning is starting to show I guess. Wasn't even aware of the term unicase until just now.

Yours
Vern

>I see that the question was not about uncial type, but rather (presumably) fonts with only an upper or lower case, not both.

I actually meant those fonts that mix typically upper and lower case forms to produce an alphabet of even height. See, for example, the unicase stylistic set of Thomas's own Hypatia Sans.

Time to weight in again, this time on "unicase" type.

First off, they are "uncial" letterforms, and they have a very deep history. Broadly speaking, they long predate the majuscules and minuscules that evolved to become our uppercase and lowercase letterforms. If you were a scribe in the 5th century, it's the form you would use. They had disappeared from common use by the time moveable type came along, but entered typography in the 19th century for historical work.

The 20th century saw a revival of sorts, in step with the general examination of type and typography of the period. Much like blackletter faces they all have a very strong presence that makes them more useful for display than running text.

While uncial historically was unicameral (one case), the most commonly seen uncial today has an upper and lower case (American Uncial, by Victor Hammer, just after WWII)

I now return you to your regular programming.

Yours
Vern

Edit: After reading the post again, I see that the question was not about uncial type, but rather (presumably) fonts with only an upper or lower case, not both. In which case, free history lesson. ;-)

Vern

As Neil indicates, editing text is not always an option, and I do like the fact that the paper in this case didn't shy away from the issue. I may not like their solution (and I'm not even sure what I would have done), but at least they faced the problem head on.

Herb,

In my particular case, we just couldn't change so much as a comma. The client wrote it and gave instructions not to edit it in any way.

Neil