[tolerance]

> Nonne tu linguam Latinam legere potes?

Veni venti Gucci!

I guess it’s safe to say that you can read Latin? What I’m trying to figure out is whether the typography in the Gutenberg Bible was exceptional for its time.

So I guess the fairer question may be whether Germans would’ve found Latin difficult to read in blackletter/Gothic type, which apparently descends from Roman cursive anyhow.

I asked my initial question (whether the grandparent commenter understood the language) because I wanted to figure out whether criticizing the typography as “form-over-function” made sense.

[yorwba]

The problem is not the use of blackletter, but the narrow spacing and copious use of abbreviations to cram the text into two rectangular columns. That was certainly not an unusual goal to have, and you can see the same in handwritten manuscripts https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bible.malmesbury.arp... though executed less perfectly, but that doesn't mean it's not form-over-function.

[tolerance]

I gather that form-over-function is not as binary as I imagine. That and I’m at fault for assuming that because that style of typography was prevalent people enjoyed reading it or found it legible.

Thanks.