This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Terminology
editI think most non-specialists would refer to this as a "piece of type." Since "type" redirects to typesetting, I've put in a link there.DGG 05:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks David :)
- Arbo talk 23:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That depends on what "this" is :-)
Here is the OED definition of sort, n.2, I. 13. b (https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/184953)): "Typography. One or other of the characters or letters in a fount of type. Usually in plural." The term does not refer to the individual piece of type.
Also see for instance The printer's manual : a practical guide for compositors and pressmen or just about any manual of typography.
Henrik Thiil Nielsen (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- and just to make life entertaining, according to the Oxford Companion to the Book:
Sort: An individual piece, or pieces, of physical type
.[1] and [ibid]Out of sorts: Sorts being individual pieces of type, to be out of sorts is to find that the available type is insufficient for a job, typically because certain letters are lacking. This circumstance, possibly occurring frequently in the hand-press period, left the compositor and other workmen irritated
.[2] - Your The Printer's Manual citation doesn't really settle the matter: it just seems to say "if you get 400 pounds of "letter A" sorts, each of those sorts will weigh 2 pounds (which seems infeasibly heavy for a single letter?). A search for "sorts" returns many more hits but none that we can use to settle the matter conclusively. I suspect that author was unaware of the possibility that anyone reading the book might not know something so basically obvious.
- I realise that you are correct, but we would still need a definitive citation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- It is interesting that Southward's Dictionary of Typography, (page 66) doesn't bother to define it. But then he doesn't define "letter" at the elemental level either. Well, its not a kindergarten primer!
- This ("Founts, fonts and typefaces") is quite good but it is self-published so not usable. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Now here's an interesting one:
Sort—A type or character considered as a part of a font, usually a quantity of one kind. When all the letters of one kind are missing the case is out of sorts. When the copy calls for more than the usual number of a particular character it runs on sorts.
[3] NB "a type or character". And on page 8, Stewart admonished the apprentice compositor to get into3. The habit of picking up at once type and other articles dropped on the floor. A type stepped on is spoiled.
So, using modern parlance, a 'sort' is logically a letter or other glyph but physically a type. Discuss! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Now here's an interesting one:
But to get to the end of an interesting diversion, I don't see any reason the change the article as it stands today. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Sort
- ^ Out of sorts
- ^ A.A. Stewart (1919). TYPESETTING: a primer of information about working at the case, justifying, spacing, correcting, making-up, and other operations employed in setting type by hand. Typographic technical series for apprentices—Part II. No. 16. United Typothetae of America. p. 92 – via Project Gutenberg.
Image issues
editThe image is unacceptable because it has been mirrored. Type is SUPPOSED to be backwards. However, I can understand cropping to show the subject better. I'll upload a cropped version that is reversed.--Andrew c 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew. :) The image has not been mirrored. The type is backwards in this image. Open it up in a bitmap editor and rotate it 180 degrees—the type is still reversed, as it should be. Beware of mirroring and flipping images in a bitmap editor: flipping without mirroring actually reverses an image. Flipping and mirroring produces the same result as a 180 degree rotation.
- I've overwritten the image with a rotated version. The type is "the right way up" (not upside down), but still reversed as in real life. Thanks, we got a better encyclopedia from this :)
- best regards, Arbo talk 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm only now reading this page - 16 years later! Although pleased by the quality of the article, I'm disappointed that the letter H is used for the illustration. Despite all the asymmetrical letters that could be used to make the orientation clear, a symmetrical one has been chosen. Could a different letter be used for the image e.g the letter a JRGp (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Good point. Unfortunately the person who created it (on Commons) hasn't been active in over ten years so I'm afraid you will have to create a new version yourself (or phone a friend?). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I can see there's some history there. Looks likely to be hard. JRGp (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Good point. Unfortunately the person who created it (on Commons) hasn't been active in over ten years so I'm afraid you will have to create a new version yourself (or phone a friend?). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm only now reading this page - 16 years later! Although pleased by the quality of the article, I'm disappointed that the letter H is used for the illustration. Despite all the asymmetrical letters that could be used to make the orientation clear, a symmetrical one has been chosen. Could a different letter be used for the image e.g the letter a JRGp (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
metaltype.co.uk
editThis page (linked to from the article) seems to concern hot metal type, which - as I understand it - doesn't use sorts. --Taejo|대조 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)