“&” (ampersand) was from a ligature of e and t. but it looks nothing like e and t put together. Why?
-
See english.stackexchange.com/questions/476429/…– Draconis ♦Jun 9 at 4:11
-
1Handwritten ampersands tend to look like an epsilon-style "e" with a vertical stroke (a "t" without the crossbar) through it.– chepnerJun 9 at 17:40
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
To put it simply, it evolved over time and generally isn't seen as a ligature of E and t any more.
chasly on ELU offers this demonstration:
Other fonts may show the Et connection more clearly.
-
3It also helps to know what Roman cursive writing looked like, as opposed to the block letters that formed the basis of the uppercase letters. The Wikipedia article shows some additional details of the evolution.– chepnerJun 9 at 17:39
-
@chepner Does the & have anything to do with Roman cursive though? The "Tironian et" is a separate thing.– Draconis ♦Jun 9 at 18:10
-
I'm referring to the first paragraph under the "History" section, which mentions Roman cursive. Tirnion "et" is mentioned later in the article as a separate shorthand symbol (which I would maybe best describe as coincidentally similar to a lowercase cursive "t"?).– chepnerJun 9 at 18:20
-
1@chepner Ah, I see. I wasn't aware of that connection but feel free to write it up as another answer!– Draconis ♦Jun 9 at 18:21
-
@spectras I very much doubt Roman cursive was taught in France up until 2013, except in highly specialised university classes. ‘Roman cursive’ is a specific thing, not just any handwritten, cursive variant of the Latin alphabet. The Old Roman cursive hasn’t been used since around the fourth century AD and is pretty much undecipherable to modern-day laypersons; and while the New Roman cursive does start to become more similar to the current Latin alphabet, it’s still very hard to read without training and has been out of use for about 1,300 years. Jun 19 at 0:12