Use of “f ” instead of “s” in historic, printed English documents
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
I was at a museum in London yesterday, and one of the items on exhibit is a document from the eighteenth century. It uses the letter f a lot where s should be used—for example, in Majefty.
Did the letter f once have the same sound as s today, or were some of those words actually spoken with an f ?
orthography history pronunciation-vs-spelling typography
edited Nov 10 '15 at 4:59
sumelic
50.6k8121228
asked Aug 15 '11 at 11:13
Paul StovellPaul Stovell
292136
|
show 5 more comments
I was at a museum in London yesterday, and one of the items on exhibit is a document from the eighteenth century. It uses the letter f a lot where s should be used—for example, in Majefty.
Did the letter f once have the same sound as s today, or were some of those words actually spoken with an f ?
orthography history pronunciation-vs-spelling typography
edited Nov 10 '15 at 4:59
sumelic
50.6k8121228
asked Aug 15 '11 at 11:13
Paul StovellPaul Stovell
292136
After a little reading I think this isn't 'Old English', just 'not so modern English'. Can someone more knowledgeable re-title the question?
– Paul Stovell
Aug 15 '11 at 11:15
15
It's a "long s" or "medial s" and was a change in typography that also occurred in other languages. It's not really a question about English. Also, the wiki page on "long s" probably answers your questions quite satisfactorily.
– z7sg Ѫ
Aug 15 '11 at 11:27
8
@Paul: If this were Old English, you wouldn't be able to read it without a dictionary (see text samples). In fact, I would say the text in question isn't even Early Modern English. It's just plain Modern English.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 15 '11 at 11:28
1
I had wondered about this myself. I didn't know there was a name for this type of s, and that it was common in other languages too. How fascinating.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Aug 15 '11 at 12:35
Note also the date "4. June 1702" in cursive below the title.
– Cerberus
Aug 16 '11 at 9:21
|
show 5 more comments
I was at a museum in London yesterday, and one of the items on exhibit is a document from the eighteenth century. It uses the letter f a lot where s should be used—for example, in Majefty.
Did the letter f once have the same sound as s today, or were some of those words actually spoken with an f ?
orthography history pronunciation-vs-spelling typography
edited Nov 10 '15 at 4:59
sumelic
50.6k8121228
asked Aug 15 '11 at 11:13
Paul StovellPaul Stovell
292136
I was at a museum in London yesterday, and one of the items on exhibit is a document from the eighteenth century. It uses the letter f a lot where s should be used—for example, in Majefty.
Did the letter f once have the same sound as s today, or were some of those words actually spoken with an f ?
orthography history pronunciation-vs-spelling typography
orthography history pronunciation-vs-spelling typography
edited Nov 10 '15 at 4:59
sumelic
50.6k8121228
asked Aug 15 '11 at 11:13
Paul StovellPaul Stovell
292136
edited Nov 10 '15 at 4:59
sumelic
50.6k8121228
asked Aug 15 '11 at 11:13
Paul StovellPaul Stovell
292136
edited Nov 10 '15 at 4:59
sumelic
50.6k8121228
edited Nov 10 '15 at 4:59
sumelic
50.6k8121228
edited Nov 10 '15 at 4:59
sumelic
50.6k8121228
50.6k8121228
asked Aug 15 '11 at 11:13
Paul StovellPaul Stovell
292136
asked Aug 15 '11 at 11:13
Paul StovellPaul Stovell
292136
asked Aug 15 '11 at 11:13
Paul StovellPaul Stovell
292136
292136
After a little reading I think this isn't 'Old English', just 'not so modern English'. Can someone more knowledgeable re-title the question?
– Paul Stovell
Aug 15 '11 at 11:15
15
It's a "long s" or "medial s" and was a change in typography that also occurred in other languages. It's not really a question about English. Also, the wiki page on "long s" probably answers your questions quite satisfactorily.
– z7sg Ѫ
Aug 15 '11 at 11:27
8
@Paul: If this were Old English, you wouldn't be able to read it without a dictionary (see text samples). In fact, I would say the text in question isn't even Early Modern English. It's just plain Modern English.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 15 '11 at 11:28
1
I had wondered about this myself. I didn't know there was a name for this type of s, and that it was common in other languages too. How fascinating.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Aug 15 '11 at 12:35
Note also the date "4. June 1702" in cursive below the title.
– Cerberus
Aug 16 '11 at 9:21
|
show 5 more comments
After a little reading I think this isn't 'Old English', just 'not so modern English'. Can someone more knowledgeable re-title the question?
– Paul Stovell
Aug 15 '11 at 11:15
15
It's a "long s" or "medial s" and was a change in typography that also occurred in other languages. It's not really a question about English. Also, the wiki page on "long s" probably answers your questions quite satisfactorily.
– z7sg Ѫ
Aug 15 '11 at 11:27
8
@Paul: If this were Old English, you wouldn't be able to read it without a dictionary (see text samples). In fact, I would say the text in question isn't even Early Modern English. It's just plain Modern English.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 15 '11 at 11:28
1
I had wondered about this myself. I didn't know there was a name for this type of s, and that it was common in other languages too. How fascinating.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Aug 15 '11 at 12:35
Note also the date "4. June 1702" in cursive below the title.
– Cerberus
Aug 16 '11 at 9:21
After a little reading I think this isn't 'Old English', just 'not so modern English'. Can someone more knowledgeable re-title the question?
– Paul Stovell
Aug 15 '11 at 11:15
After a little reading I think this isn't 'Old English', just 'not so modern English'. Can someone more knowledgeable re-title the question?
– Paul Stovell
Aug 15 '11 at 11:15
15
15
It's a "long s" or "medial s" and was a change in typography that also occurred in other languages. It's not really a question about English. Also, the wiki page on "long s" probably answers your questions quite satisfactorily.
– z7sg Ѫ
Aug 15 '11 at 11:27
It's a "long s" or "medial s" and was a change in typography that also occurred in other languages. It's not really a question about English. Also, the wiki page on "long s" probably answers your questions quite satisfactorily.
– z7sg Ѫ
Aug 15 '11 at 11:27
8
8
@Paul: If this were Old English, you wouldn't be able to read it without a dictionary (see text samples). In fact, I would say the text in question isn't even Early Modern English. It's just plain Modern English.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 15 '11 at 11:28
@Paul: If this were Old English, you wouldn't be able to read it without a dictionary (see text samples). In fact, I would say the text in question isn't even Early Modern English. It's just plain Modern English.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 15 '11 at 11:28
1
1
I had wondered about this myself. I didn't know there was a name for this type of s, and that it was common in other languages too. How fascinating.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Aug 15 '11 at 12:35
I had wondered about this myself. I didn't know there was a name for this type of s, and that it was common in other languages too. How fascinating.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Aug 15 '11 at 12:35
Note also the date "4. June 1702" in cursive below the title.
– Cerberus
Aug 16 '11 at 9:21
Note also the date "4. June 1702" in cursive below the title.
– Cerberus
Aug 16 '11 at 9:21
|
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
In the first place, it’s not f, but long s.
It was just a different way of writing s. It was always pronounced as an s is pronounced; it was never pronounced as an f. Its history explains the letter pretty well. Long s:
The long-s originated at a very early date in cursive Roman scripts, and can be seen in both Old Roman Cursive (1st to 3rd centuries AD) and New Roman Cursive (late 3rd century to 7th century).
("The Long and the Short of the Letter S", by Andrew West, BabelStone Blog)
It’s no longer used in today’s English. One reason it’s no longer used is because:
“The death knell,” he writes, “was finally sounded on September 10th 1803 when ... The Times newspaper quietly switched to a modern typeface with no long s or old-fashioned ligatures (this was one of several reforms instituted by John Walter the Second, who became joint proprietor and exclusive manager of The Times at the beginning of 1803).”
This may have been due to the fact that:
Long ‘s’ fell out of use in Roman and italic typography well before the middle of the 19th century; in French the change occurred from about 1780 onwards, in English in the decades before and after 1800, and in the United States around 1820. This may have been spurred by the fact that long ‘s’ looks somewhat like ‘f ’ (in both its Roman and italic forms), whereas short ‘s’ did not have the disadvantage of looking like another letter, making it easier to read correctly, especially for people with vision problems.
("The Gradual Disappearance of the Long S in Typography", Jeremy Norman's HistoryofInformation.com)
edited yesterday
sumelic
50.6k8121228
answered Aug 15 '11 at 11:18
ThursagenThursagen
35.4k38146216
add a comment |
It’s not f (that is, Unicode codepoint U+0066: LATIN SMALL LETTER F), but rather ſ (meaning Unicode codepoint U+017F: LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S).
answered Aug 15 '11 at 14:09
starbluestarblue
36028
add a comment |
protected by Community♦ May 17 '13 at 12:09
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In the first place, it’s not f, but long s.
It was just a different way of writing s. It was always pronounced as an s is pronounced; it was never pronounced as an f. Its history explains the letter pretty well. Long s:
The long-s originated at a very early date in cursive Roman scripts, and can be seen in both Old Roman Cursive (1st to 3rd centuries AD) and New Roman Cursive (late 3rd century to 7th century).
("The Long and the Short of the Letter S", by Andrew West, BabelStone Blog)
It’s no longer used in today’s English. One reason it’s no longer used is because:
“The death knell,” he writes, “was finally sounded on September 10th 1803 when ... The Times newspaper quietly switched to a modern typeface with no long s or old-fashioned ligatures (this was one of several reforms instituted by John Walter the Second, who became joint proprietor and exclusive manager of The Times at the beginning of 1803).”
This may have been due to the fact that:
Long ‘s’ fell out of use in Roman and italic typography well before the middle of the 19th century; in French the change occurred from about 1780 onwards, in English in the decades before and after 1800, and in the United States around 1820. This may have been spurred by the fact that long ‘s’ looks somewhat like ‘f ’ (in both its Roman and italic forms), whereas short ‘s’ did not have the disadvantage of looking like another letter, making it easier to read correctly, especially for people with vision problems.
("The Gradual Disappearance of the Long S in Typography", Jeremy Norman's HistoryofInformation.com)
edited yesterday
sumelic
50.6k8121228
answered Aug 15 '11 at 11:18
ThursagenThursagen
35.4k38146216
add a comment |
In the first place, it’s not f, but long s.
It was just a different way of writing s. It was always pronounced as an s is pronounced; it was never pronounced as an f. Its history explains the letter pretty well. Long s:
The long-s originated at a very early date in cursive Roman scripts, and can be seen in both Old Roman Cursive (1st to 3rd centuries AD) and New Roman Cursive (late 3rd century to 7th century).
("The Long and the Short of the Letter S", by Andrew West, BabelStone Blog)
It’s no longer used in today’s English. One reason it’s no longer used is because:
“The death knell,” he writes, “was finally sounded on September 10th 1803 when ... The Times newspaper quietly switched to a modern typeface with no long s or old-fashioned ligatures (this was one of several reforms instituted by John Walter the Second, who became joint proprietor and exclusive manager of The Times at the beginning of 1803).”
This may have been due to the fact that:
Long ‘s’ fell out of use in Roman and italic typography well before the middle of the 19th century; in French the change occurred from about 1780 onwards, in English in the decades before and after 1800, and in the United States around 1820. This may have been spurred by the fact that long ‘s’ looks somewhat like ‘f ’ (in both its Roman and italic forms), whereas short ‘s’ did not have the disadvantage of looking like another letter, making it easier to read correctly, especially for people with vision problems.
("The Gradual Disappearance of the Long S in Typography", Jeremy Norman's HistoryofInformation.com)
edited yesterday
sumelic
50.6k8121228
answered Aug 15 '11 at 11:18
ThursagenThursagen
35.4k38146216
add a comment |
In the first place, it’s not f, but long s.
It was just a different way of writing s. It was always pronounced as an s is pronounced; it was never pronounced as an f. Its history explains the letter pretty well. Long s:
The long-s originated at a very early date in cursive Roman scripts, and can be seen in both Old Roman Cursive (1st to 3rd centuries AD) and New Roman Cursive (late 3rd century to 7th century).
("The Long and the Short of the Letter S", by Andrew West, BabelStone Blog)
It’s no longer used in today’s English. One reason it’s no longer used is because:
“The death knell,” he writes, “was finally sounded on September 10th 1803 when ... The Times newspaper quietly switched to a modern typeface with no long s or old-fashioned ligatures (this was one of several reforms instituted by John Walter the Second, who became joint proprietor and exclusive manager of The Times at the beginning of 1803).”
This may have been due to the fact that:
Long ‘s’ fell out of use in Roman and italic typography well before the middle of the 19th century; in French the change occurred from about 1780 onwards, in English in the decades before and after 1800, and in the United States around 1820. This may have been spurred by the fact that long ‘s’ looks somewhat like ‘f ’ (in both its Roman and italic forms), whereas short ‘s’ did not have the disadvantage of looking like another letter, making it easier to read correctly, especially for people with vision problems.
("The Gradual Disappearance of the Long S in Typography", Jeremy Norman's HistoryofInformation.com)
edited yesterday
sumelic
50.6k8121228
answered Aug 15 '11 at 11:18
ThursagenThursagen
35.4k38146216
In the first place, it’s not f, but long s.
It was just a different way of writing s. It was always pronounced as an s is pronounced; it was never pronounced as an f. Its history explains the letter pretty well. Long s:
The long-s originated at a very early date in cursive Roman scripts, and can be seen in both Old Roman Cursive (1st to 3rd centuries AD) and New Roman Cursive (late 3rd century to 7th century).
("The Long and the Short of the Letter S", by Andrew West, BabelStone Blog)
It’s no longer used in today’s English. One reason it’s no longer used is because:
“The death knell,” he writes, “was finally sounded on September 10th 1803 when ... The Times newspaper quietly switched to a modern typeface with no long s or old-fashioned ligatures (this was one of several reforms instituted by John Walter the Second, who became joint proprietor and exclusive manager of The Times at the beginning of 1803).”
This may have been due to the fact that:
Long ‘s’ fell out of use in Roman and italic typography well before the middle of the 19th century; in French the change occurred from about 1780 onwards, in English in the decades before and after 1800, and in the United States around 1820. This may have been spurred by the fact that long ‘s’ looks somewhat like ‘f ’ (in both its Roman and italic forms), whereas short ‘s’ did not have the disadvantage of looking like another letter, making it easier to read correctly, especially for people with vision problems.
("The Gradual Disappearance of the Long S in Typography", Jeremy Norman's HistoryofInformation.com)
edited yesterday
sumelic
50.6k8121228
answered Aug 15 '11 at 11:18
ThursagenThursagen
35.4k38146216
edited yesterday
sumelic
50.6k8121228
edited yesterday
sumelic
50.6k8121228
edited yesterday
sumelic
50.6k8121228
50.6k8121228
answered Aug 15 '11 at 11:18
ThursagenThursagen
35.4k38146216
answered Aug 15 '11 at 11:18
ThursagenThursagen
35.4k38146216
answered Aug 15 '11 at 11:18
ThursagenThursagen
35.4k38146216
35.4k38146216
add a comment |
add a comment |
It’s not f (that is, Unicode codepoint U+0066: LATIN SMALL LETTER F), but rather ſ (meaning Unicode codepoint U+017F: LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S).
answered Aug 15 '11 at 14:09
starbluestarblue
36028
add a comment |
It’s not f (that is, Unicode codepoint U+0066: LATIN SMALL LETTER F), but rather ſ (meaning Unicode codepoint U+017F: LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S).
answered Aug 15 '11 at 14:09
starbluestarblue
36028
add a comment |
It’s not f (that is, Unicode codepoint U+0066: LATIN SMALL LETTER F), but rather ſ (meaning Unicode codepoint U+017F: LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S).
answered Aug 15 '11 at 14:09
starbluestarblue
36028
It’s not f (that is, Unicode codepoint U+0066: LATIN SMALL LETTER F), but rather ſ (meaning Unicode codepoint U+017F: LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S).
answered Aug 15 '11 at 14:09
starbluestarblue
36028
edited Apr 28 '16 at 10:44
answered Aug 15 '11 at 14:09
starbluestarblue
36028
answered Aug 15 '11 at 14:09
starbluestarblue
36028
answered Aug 15 '11 at 14:09
starbluestarblue
36028
36028
add a comment |
add a comment |
protected by Community♦ May 17 '13 at 12:09
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
After a little reading I think this isn't 'Old English', just 'not so modern English'. Can someone more knowledgeable re-title the question?
– Paul Stovell
Aug 15 '11 at 11:15
15
It's a "long s" or "medial s" and was a change in typography that also occurred in other languages. It's not really a question about English. Also, the wiki page on "long s" probably answers your questions quite satisfactorily.
– z7sg Ѫ
Aug 15 '11 at 11:27
8
@Paul: If this were Old English, you wouldn't be able to read it without a dictionary (see text samples). In fact, I would say the text in question isn't even Early Modern English. It's just plain Modern English.
– RegDwigнt♦
Aug 15 '11 at 11:28
1
I had wondered about this myself. I didn't know there was a name for this type of s, and that it was common in other languages too. How fascinating.
– Kit Z. Fox♦
Aug 15 '11 at 12:35
Note also the date "4. June 1702" in cursive below the title.
– Cerberus
Aug 16 '11 at 9:21