Long-s

[deferredreward]

If you're editing/proof-reading an older English work, do you leave the ſ in, or change them to our modern s? Which do you prefer to read?

[Andrew H.]

Except in unusual circumstances, I would replace it with a modern s. I would also change nonstandard spelling ("chuse") and unusual capitalizations (some English writers used to capitalize the initial letter of every noun, as is still done in modern German).

[The Terminator]

For books i like reading in modern English most of the time, treasure island old English but not to the point were it was bad. but weird and old spelling just gets annoying. In my opinion

[Worldwalker]

Speaking of spelling, etc., Terminator, you really need to proofread your posts. Some of them are very hard to read.

Also, I seriously doubt if you could read Old English. Have you ever seen it? No, it's not the language of Treasure Island, nor Shakespeare, nor even Chaucer. To the uninitiated, it looks like German.

[Andrew H.]

Old English.

I would also edit out the thorns.

HWÆT, WE GAR-DEna in geardagum,
þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Except in unusual circumstances, I would replace it with a modern s. I would also change nonstandard spelling ("chuse") and unusual capitalizations (some English writers used to capitalize the initial letter of every noun, as is still done in modern German).

I'd replace it with a modern s, but I would not (and do not) change the spellings. Eg, Jane Austen's spelling peculiarities are a part of her writing; take them away and you don't have Austen any more.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd replace it with a modern s, but I would not (and do not) change the spellings. Eg, Jane Austen's spelling peculiarities are a part of her writing; take them away and you don't have Austen any more.

I agree. The long vs. short "s" is a font related issue. When converting to an ebook I would convert all the long "s" characters to short "s".

Spelling and punctuation are different issues. I would not change either.

[Jellby]

It depends. In English I don't know, because it's not my mother language, but in Spanish I'd either keep everything as printed (including long-s, weird punctuation, old spelling) or modernize almost everything (mainly accents and punctuation). But I haven't worked in a book which had long-s in print yet, I guess if I find it it would be old enough to make me wish to keep all the old things.

I've made a book which had an excerpt in German with a long-s and fraktur font, I kept both.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jellby

I've made a book which had an excerpt in German with a long-s and fraktur font, I kept both.

The German "scharfes S" (the letter "ß", representing a double s) is rather a different case. It's a standard part of the language, and it would be odd not to use it.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The German "scharfes S" (the letter "ß", representing a double s) is rather a different case. It's a standard part of the language, and it would be odd not to use it.

I know, but I mean an ſ by itself, not ſz or ſs:

Großes begegnen, was kann Großes denn durch ſie geſcheh'n?

[HarryT]

Ah, I see. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Jellby

I've made a book which had an excerpt in German with a long-s and fraktur font, I kept both.

That was right, in the German fraktur font there have been - aditionally to the ß - two different characters for the letter "s".
The normal character was this one:

denn durch ſie geſcheh'n?

the other

Großes begegnen, was kann Großes

was only used at the end of a word (that's why it's called end-s in German). As we have many compounded words this helped greatly as it showed where the first part of a word ended. And it made the text more precise. For instance, Wachstube can be Wach-Stube or Wachs-Tube, with a fraktur font the meaning is immediately clear.

[HarryT]

That's an excellent idea! It's perhaps come from Greek, where the letter "s" (sigma) also has two forms: "σ" normally, but "ϛ" if it's the last letter in the word.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd replace it with a modern s, but I would not (and do not) change the spellings. Eg, Jane Austen's spelling peculiarities are a part of her writing; take them away and you don't have Austen any more.

This is how I feel about it, too. The spellings are part of the flavor of the work, but (as I understand it, anyway) the difference between "f" and "s" in this case are just different ways of writing what was essentially the same sound. I think leaving them in needlessly confuses a modern reader, with no payoff.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd replace it with a modern s, but I would not (and do not) change the spellings. Eg, Jane Austen's spelling peculiarities are a part of her writing; take them away and you don't have Austen any more.

I disagree about Austen; I think her work is better without "distant veiws," characters who "recieve guests," or her use of "tomatas" or "arraroot".