So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows and
orphans and which is which, and we straightened out that history
(Gregg's Reference Manual got the definitions reversed and Microsoft
followed their lead, but that's not what I'm here for). The second
question was when the word _orphan_ (in its typographic sense) showed up.

So far, the earliest reference to orphans is Graphic Arts Encyclopedia,
second edition 1978, George A. Stevenson, McGraw-Hill, Inc., page 260
(citation courtesy of Glen Allvord). Widows are mentioned in at least a
few general English dictionaries, but none that we've checked prior to
the Third International, which was around 1963 IIRC.

My own perusal of "fine press" books from the late 19th and early 20th
centuries show a care for avoiding widows but no particular care in
avoiding orphans, leading me to think the _idea_ of the orphan is not as
old as the idea of the widow, and thus the word may not have been in use
much before the 1970s.

Anyway, the hunt is on for written (printed or manuscript), dated
citations of orphan prior to 1978 and of widow prior to 1963. A likely
place to look would be old composition textbooks or shop manuals, old
publishers' style guides, etc.

Personal memories don't count. However, I would be particularly
interested in whether Claude can shed light on corresponding French
terminology. If anyone can translate the question for his benefit, I'd
appreciate it.

Dick
http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/

Dick Margulis wrote:

> So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows and
> orphans and which is which, and we straightened out that history
> (Gregg's Reference Manual got the definitions reversed and Microsoft
> followed their lead, but that's not what I'm here for). The second
> question was when the word _orphan_ (in its typographic sense) showed up.
> 
> So far, the earliest reference to orphans is Graphic Arts Encyclopedia,
> second edition 1978, George A. Stevenson, McGraw-Hill, Inc., page 260
> (citation courtesy of Glen Allvord). Widows are mentioned in at least a
> few general English dictionaries, but none that we've checked prior to
> the Third International, which was around 1963 IIRC.
> 
> My own perusal of "fine press" books from the late 19th and early 20th
> centuries show a care for avoiding widows but no particular care in
> avoiding orphans, leading me to think the _idea_ of the orphan is not as
> old as the idea of the widow, and thus the word may not have been in use
> much before the 1970s.
> 
> Anyway, the hunt is on for written (printed or manuscript), dated
> citations of orphan prior to 1978 and of widow prior to 1963. A likely
> place to look would be old composition textbooks or shop manuals, old
> publishers' style guides, etc.
> 
> Personal memories don't count. However, I would be particularly
> interested in whether Claude can shed light on corresponding French
> terminology. If anyone can translate the question for his benefit, I'd
> appreciate it.
> 
> Dick
> http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/


This is slightly corrected (paragraph breaks only) from the otherwise 
identical response I posted in alt.binaries.fonts:

The Oxford English Dictionary has the following early references:

1904 Man. Rules Compositors S.S. McClure Co. 25 All running heads are 
to be set one nonpareil from the body, unless otherwise instructed. 
Care must be taken to overcome �rivers�, and to this end 
indiscriminate division of words is allowed. Care should also be 
exercised to overcome �widdies� at the top of pages.]

1925 [see slug n.2 4f].

1932 P. Van D. Stern Introd. Typogr. ii. 15 When a single word runs 
over, it is often desirable to alter the copy+so that the words can be 
run back. Single words standing in a line are called �widows�.

1948 Bull. N.Y. Public Library Jan. 3 Early in 1936, H. M. 
Lydenberg+began a quiet, and not quite humorless, investigation into 
the origin and identity of the typographical �widow�, that awful 
slattern of the printed page.

1954 M. Laski in Author Winter 30/2 It is a common experience, when 
working for Vogue, to be asked to add a few words to a paragraph so as 
to avoid unsightly �widows� or single-word lines.

1963 D. Ogilvy Confessions Advertising Man vii. 124 It has been 
discovered that �widows� increase readership, except at the bottom of 
a column.

    - Character

Character wrote:
> 
> The Oxford English Dictionary has the following early references:

Dang, I shoulda pulled out the magnifier after all. I swear I looked for 
it there.

> 
> 1904 Man. Rules Compositors S.S. McClure Co. 25 All running heads are to 
> be set one nonpareil from the body, unless otherwise instructed. Care 
> must be taken to overcome �rivers�, and to this end indiscriminate 
> division of words is allowed. Care should also be exercised to overcome 
> �widdies� at the top of pages.]
> 
> 1925 [see slug n.2 4f].
> 
> 1932 P. Van D. Stern Introd. Typogr. ii. 15 When a single word runs 
> over, it is often desirable to alter the copy+so that the words can be 
> run back. Single words standing in a line are called �widows�.
> 
> 1948 Bull. N.Y. Public Library Jan. 3 Early in 1936, H. M. 
> Lydenberg+began a quiet, and not quite humorless, investigation into the 
> origin and identity of the typographical �widow�, that awful slattern of 
> the printed page.
> 
> 1954 M. Laski in Author Winter 30/2 It is a common experience, when 
> working for Vogue, to be asked to add a few words to a paragraph so as 
> to avoid unsightly �widows� or single-word lines.
> 
> 1963 D. Ogilvy Confessions Advertising Man vii. 124 It has been 
> discovered that �widows� increase readership, except at the bottom of a 
> column.
> 

But the question remains, how far back can you find a cite for orphans?

Dick Margulis wrote:

> 
> But the question remains, how far back can you find a cite for orphans?

Neither my OED (2002 edition) nor my 1966 Random House includes any 
typographical use of the word.

I wonder if Lydenberg's work in 1936 bore any fruit - the OED 
reference to the NYPL bulletin implies that he was only looking for 
the history of "widow", though.

Bringhurst characterizes typographical widows as having a past but no 
future, and orphans as having a future, but no past. A nice way to 
remember which is which.

  - Ch.

Dick Margulis wrote:

> But the question remains, how far back can you find a cite for orphans?

The on-line edition of the OED does define the typographical use of 
"orphan", but its earliest reference is in the magazine "Office" in 
1980.  A slightly later reference is to the Word Perfect reference manual.

  - Character

Character wrote:
> Dick Margulis wrote:
> 
>> But the question remains, how far back can you find a cite for orphans?
> 
> The on-line edition of the OED does define the typographical use of 
> "orphan", but its earliest reference is in the magazine "Office" in 
> 1980.  A slightly later reference is to the Word Perfect reference manual.
> 
>  - Character

We've got the 1978 reference cited yesterday. That's the one to beat.

Both practices are described and condemned in Van Winkle (1818),
Savage (1841), and MacKellar (1885), but none use the terms.

Wm Voss


On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:40:27 -0400, Dick Margulis
<margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:

>So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows and
>orphans and which is which, and we straightened out that history
>(Gregg's Reference Manual got the definitions reversed and Microsoft
>followed their lead, but that's not what I'm here for). The second
>question was when the word _orphan_ (in its typographic sense) showed up.
>
>So far, the earliest reference to orphans is Graphic Arts Encyclopedia,
>second edition 1978, George A. Stevenson, McGraw-Hill, Inc., page 260
>(citation courtesy of Glen Allvord). Widows are mentioned in at least a
>few general English dictionaries, but none that we've checked prior to
>the Third International, which was around 1963 IIRC.
>
>My own perusal of "fine press" books from the late 19th and early 20th
>centuries show a care for avoiding widows but no particular care in
>avoiding orphans, leading me to think the _idea_ of the orphan is not as
>old as the idea of the widow, and thus the word may not have been in use
>much before the 1970s.
>
>Anyway, the hunt is on for written (printed or manuscript), dated
>citations of orphan prior to 1978 and of widow prior to 1963. A likely
>place to look would be old composition textbooks or shop manuals, old
>publishers' style guides, etc.
>
>Personal memories don't count. However, I would be particularly
>interested in whether Claude can shed light on corresponding French
>terminology. If anyone can translate the question for his benefit, I'd
>appreciate it.
>
>Dick
>http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/

Wm,

Thanks very much for looking them up. The window is narrowing, albeit 
slowly ;-)

Dick


bella fortuni wrote:
> Both practices are described and condemned in Van Winkle (1818),
> Savage (1841), and MacKellar (1885), but none use the terms.
> 
> Wm Voss
> 
> 
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:40:27 -0400, Dick Margulis
> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows and
>> orphans and which is which, and we straightened out that history
>> (Gregg's Reference Manual got the definitions reversed and Microsoft
>> followed their lead, but that's not what I'm here for). The second
>> question was when the word _orphan_ (in its typographic sense) showed up.
>>
>> So far, the earliest reference to orphans is Graphic Arts Encyclopedia,
>> second edition 1978, George A. Stevenson, McGraw-Hill, Inc., page 260
>> (citation courtesy of Glen Allvord). Widows are mentioned in at least a
>> few general English dictionaries, but none that we've checked prior to
>> the Third International, which was around 1963 IIRC.
>>
>> My own perusal of "fine press" books from the late 19th and early 20th
>> centuries show a care for avoiding widows but no particular care in
>> avoiding orphans, leading me to think the _idea_ of the orphan is not as
>> old as the idea of the widow, and thus the word may not have been in use
>> much before the 1970s.
>>
>> Anyway, the hunt is on for written (printed or manuscript), dated
>> citations of orphan prior to 1978 and of widow prior to 1963. A likely
>> place to look would be old composition textbooks or shop manuals, old
>> publishers' style guides, etc.
>>
>> Personal memories don't count. However, I would be particularly
>> interested in whether Claude can shed light on corresponding French
>> terminology. If anyone can translate the question for his benefit, I'd
>> appreciate it.
>>
>> Dick
>> http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/
> 

A Widow is also described in Moxon, but not by term. The editors do
note the term in use among English printers; the Dutch called it a
Whore's Son.

Wm Voss

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:11:31 -0400, Dick Margulis
<margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:

>Wm,
>
>Thanks very much for looking them up. The window is narrowing, albeit 
>slowly ;-)
>
>Dick
>
>
>bella fortuni wrote:
>> Both practices are described and condemned in Van Winkle (1818),
>> Savage (1841), and MacKellar (1885), but none use the terms.
>> 
>> Wm Voss
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:40:27 -0400, Dick Margulis
>> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows and
>>> orphans and which is which, and we straightened out that history
>>> (Gregg's Reference Manual got the definitions reversed and Microsoft
>>> followed their lead, but that's not what I'm here for). The second
>>> question was when the word _orphan_ (in its typographic sense) showed up.
>>>
>>> So far, the earliest reference to orphans is Graphic Arts Encyclopedia,
>>> second edition 1978, George A. Stevenson, McGraw-Hill, Inc., page 260
>>> (citation courtesy of Glen Allvord). Widows are mentioned in at least a
>>> few general English dictionaries, but none that we've checked prior to
>>> the Third International, which was around 1963 IIRC.
>>>
>>> My own perusal of "fine press" books from the late 19th and early 20th
>>> centuries show a care for avoiding widows but no particular care in
>>> avoiding orphans, leading me to think the _idea_ of the orphan is not as
>>> old as the idea of the widow, and thus the word may not have been in use
>>> much before the 1970s.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the hunt is on for written (printed or manuscript), dated
>>> citations of orphan prior to 1978 and of widow prior to 1963. A likely
>>> place to look would be old composition textbooks or shop manuals, old
>>> publishers' style guides, etc.
>>>
>>> Personal memories don't count. However, I would be particularly
>>> interested in whether Claude can shed light on corresponding French
>>> terminology. If anyone can translate the question for his benefit, I'd
>>> appreciate it.
>>>
>>> Dick
>>> http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/
>> 

So the Dutch called a widow an orphan. That certainly pushes the 
confusion back quite a ways from Gregg! Any date on the Dutch reference?


bella fortuni wrote:
> A Widow is also described in Moxon, but not by term. The editors do
> note the term in use among English printers; the Dutch called it a
> Whore's Son.
> 
> Wm Voss
> 
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:11:31 -0400, Dick Margulis
> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Wm,
>>
>> Thanks very much for looking them up. The window is narrowing, albeit 
>> slowly ;-)
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>> bella fortuni wrote:
>>> Both practices are described and condemned in Van Winkle (1818),
>>> Savage (1841), and MacKellar (1885), but none use the terms.
>>>
>>> Wm Voss
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:40:27 -0400, Dick Margulis
>>> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows and
>>>> orphans and which is which, and we straightened out that history
>>>> (Gregg's Reference Manual got the definitions reversed and Microsoft
>>>> followed their lead, but that's not what I'm here for). The second
>>>> question was when the word _orphan_ (in its typographic sense) showed up.
>>>>
>>>> So far, the earliest reference to orphans is Graphic Arts Encyclopedia,
>>>> second edition 1978, George A. Stevenson, McGraw-Hill, Inc., page 260
>>>> (citation courtesy of Glen Allvord). Widows are mentioned in at least a
>>>> few general English dictionaries, but none that we've checked prior to
>>>> the Third International, which was around 1963 IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> My own perusal of "fine press" books from the late 19th and early 20th
>>>> centuries show a care for avoiding widows but no particular care in
>>>> avoiding orphans, leading me to think the _idea_ of the orphan is not as
>>>> old as the idea of the widow, and thus the word may not have been in use
>>>> much before the 1970s.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the hunt is on for written (printed or manuscript), dated
>>>> citations of orphan prior to 1978 and of widow prior to 1963. A likely
>>>> place to look would be old composition textbooks or shop manuals, old
>>>> publishers' style guides, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Personal memories don't count. However, I would be particularly
>>>> interested in whether Claude can shed light on corresponding French
>>>> terminology. If anyone can translate the question for his benefit, I'd
>>>> appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>> Dick
>>>> http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/
> 

Just the publication date of 1958.


On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:48:07 -0400, Dick Margulis
<margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:

>So the Dutch called a widow an orphan. That certainly pushes the 
>confusion back quite a ways from Gregg! Any date on the Dutch reference?
>
>
>bella fortuni wrote:
>> A Widow is also described in Moxon, but not by term. The editors do
>> note the term in use among English printers; the Dutch called it a
>> Whore's Son.
>> 
>> Wm Voss
>> 
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:11:31 -0400, Dick Margulis
>> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Wm,
>>>
>>> Thanks very much for looking them up. The window is narrowing, albeit 
>>> slowly ;-)
>>>
>>> Dick
>>>
>>>
>>> bella fortuni wrote:
>>>> Both practices are described and condemned in Van Winkle (1818),
>>>> Savage (1841), and MacKellar (1885), but none use the terms.
>>>>
>>>> Wm Voss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:40:27 -0400, Dick Margulis
>>>> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows and
>>>>> orphans and which is which, and we straightened out that history
>>>>> (Gregg's Reference Manual got the definitions reversed and Microsoft
>>>>> followed their lead, but that's not what I'm here for). The second
>>>>> question was when the word _orphan_ (in its typographic sense) showed up.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, the earliest reference to orphans is Graphic Arts Encyclopedia,
>>>>> second edition 1978, George A. Stevenson, McGraw-Hill, Inc., page 260
>>>>> (citation courtesy of Glen Allvord). Widows are mentioned in at least a
>>>>> few general English dictionaries, but none that we've checked prior to
>>>>> the Third International, which was around 1963 IIRC.
>>>>>
>>>>> My own perusal of "fine press" books from the late 19th and early 20th
>>>>> centuries show a care for avoiding widows but no particular care in
>>>>> avoiding orphans, leading me to think the _idea_ of the orphan is not as
>>>>> old as the idea of the widow, and thus the word may not have been in use
>>>>> much before the 1970s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, the hunt is on for written (printed or manuscript), dated
>>>>> citations of orphan prior to 1978 and of widow prior to 1963. A likely
>>>>> place to look would be old composition textbooks or shop manuals, old
>>>>> publishers' style guides, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personal memories don't count. However, I would be particularly
>>>>> interested in whether Claude can shed light on corresponding French
>>>>> terminology. If anyone can translate the question for his benefit, I'd
>>>>> appreciate it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dick
>>>>> http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/
>> 

That's the pub date of the annotated edition of Moxon you have? Or 
something else?

bella fortuni wrote:
> Just the publication date of 1958.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:48:07 -0400, Dick Margulis
> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> So the Dutch called a widow an orphan. That certainly pushes the 
>> confusion back quite a ways from Gregg! Any date on the Dutch reference?
>>
>>
>> bella fortuni wrote:
>>> A Widow is also described in Moxon, but not by term. The editors do
>>> note the term in use among English printers; the Dutch called it a
>>> Whore's Son.
>>>
>>> Wm Voss
>>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:11:31 -0400, Dick Margulis
>>> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wm,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks very much for looking them up. The window is narrowing, albeit 
>>>> slowly ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Dick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bella fortuni wrote:
>>>>> Both practices are described and condemned in Van Winkle (1818),
>>>>> Savage (1841), and MacKellar (1885), but none use the terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wm Voss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:40:27 -0400, Dick Margulis
>>>>> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows and
>>>>>> orphans and which is which, and we straightened out that history
>>>>>> (Gregg's Reference Manual got the definitions reversed and Microsoft
>>>>>> followed their lead, but that's not what I'm here for). The second
>>>>>> question was when the word _orphan_ (in its typographic sense) showed up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far, the earliest reference to orphans is Graphic Arts Encyclopedia,
>>>>>> second edition 1978, George A. Stevenson, McGraw-Hill, Inc., page 260
>>>>>> (citation courtesy of Glen Allvord). Widows are mentioned in at least a
>>>>>> few general English dictionaries, but none that we've checked prior to
>>>>>> the Third International, which was around 1963 IIRC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My own perusal of "fine press" books from the late 19th and early 20th
>>>>>> centuries show a care for avoiding widows but no particular care in
>>>>>> avoiding orphans, leading me to think the _idea_ of the orphan is not as
>>>>>> old as the idea of the widow, and thus the word may not have been in use
>>>>>> much before the 1970s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, the hunt is on for written (printed or manuscript), dated
>>>>>> citations of orphan prior to 1978 and of widow prior to 1963. A likely
>>>>>> place to look would be old composition textbooks or shop manuals, old
>>>>>> publishers' style guides, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personal memories don't count. However, I would be particularly
>>>>>> interested in whether Claude can shed light on corresponding French
>>>>>> terminology. If anyone can translate the question for his benefit, I'd
>>>>>> appreciate it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>> http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/
> 

Sorry, yes, the publication date of the edition.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:36:13 -0400, Dick Margulis
<margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:

>That's the pub date of the annotated edition of Moxon you have? Or 
>something else?
>
>bella fortuni wrote:
>> Just the publication date of 1958.
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:48:07 -0400, Dick Margulis
>> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> So the Dutch called a widow an orphan. That certainly pushes the 
>>> confusion back quite a ways from Gregg! Any date on the Dutch reference?
>>>
>>>
>>> bella fortuni wrote:
>>>> A Widow is also described in Moxon, but not by term. The editors do
>>>> note the term in use among English printers; the Dutch called it a
>>>> Whore's Son.
>>>>
>>>> Wm Voss
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:11:31 -0400, Dick Margulis
>>>> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wm,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks very much for looking them up. The window is narrowing, albeit 
>>>>> slowly ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bella fortuni wrote:
>>>>>> Both practices are described and condemned in Van Winkle (1818),
>>>>>> Savage (1841), and MacKellar (1885), but none use the terms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wm Voss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:40:27 -0400, Dick Margulis
>>>>>> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows and
>>>>>>> orphans and which is which, and we straightened out that history
>>>>>>> (Gregg's Reference Manual got the definitions reversed and Microsoft
>>>>>>> followed their lead, but that's not what I'm here for). The second
>>>>>>> question was when the word _orphan_ (in its typographic sense) showed up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far, the earliest reference to orphans is Graphic Arts Encyclopedia,
>>>>>>> second edition 1978, George A. Stevenson, McGraw-Hill, Inc., page 260
>>>>>>> (citation courtesy of Glen Allvord). Widows are mentioned in at least a
>>>>>>> few general English dictionaries, but none that we've checked prior to
>>>>>>> the Third International, which was around 1963 IIRC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My own perusal of "fine press" books from the late 19th and early 20th
>>>>>>> centuries show a care for avoiding widows but no particular care in
>>>>>>> avoiding orphans, leading me to think the _idea_ of the orphan is not as
>>>>>>> old as the idea of the widow, and thus the word may not have been in use
>>>>>>> much before the 1970s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, the hunt is on for written (printed or manuscript), dated
>>>>>>> citations of orphan prior to 1978 and of widow prior to 1963. A likely
>>>>>>> place to look would be old composition textbooks or shop manuals, old
>>>>>>> publishers' style guides, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personal memories don't count. However, I would be particularly
>>>>>>> interested in whether Claude can shed light on corresponding French
>>>>>>> terminology. If anyone can translate the question for his benefit, I'd
>>>>>>> appreciate it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>> http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/
>> 

Interesting -- A Composition Manual (PIA, 1953) doesn't even mention
either topic, though given the typographic standards of the era,
perhaps that's no small surprise. . . 

Wm Voss

bella fortuni wrote:
> Interesting -- A Composition Manual (PIA, 1953) doesn't even mention
> either topic, though given the typographic standards of the era,
> perhaps that's no small surprise. . . 
> 
> Wm Voss


LOL. I know what you mean. Actually, you surprised me with the citations 
from the nineteenth c. Most of my specimens from about 1830 to 1890 or 
so really suck. And after that it's only the Arts & Crafts and, later, 
the American art presses that uphold any kind of standards at all until 
we get to the 1960s.

Maybe you can search in your references for "hoerenjong" (whore's son) or 
"weeskind" (orphan).
(i'm interested reading this thread)

-- 
http://phontphreak.fateback.com/
(still under construction)


"Dick Margulis" <margulisd@comcast.net> schreef in bericht 
news:139f45vij3urr01@news.supernews.com...
> So the Dutch called a widow an orphan. That certainly pushes the confusion 
> back quite a ways from Gregg! Any date on the Dutch reference?
>
>
> bella fortuni wrote:
>> A Widow is also described in Moxon, but not by term. The editors do
>> note the term in use among English printers; the Dutch called it a
>> Whore's Son.
>>
>> Wm Voss
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:11:31 -0400, Dick Margulis
>> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Wm,
>>>
>>> Thanks very much for looking them up. The window is narrowing, albeit 
>>> slowly ;-)
>>>
>>> Dick
>>>
>>>
>>> bella fortuni wrote:
>>>> Both practices are described and condemned in Van Winkle (1818),
>>>> Savage (1841), and MacKellar (1885), but none use the terms.
>>>>
>>>> Wm Voss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:40:27 -0400, Dick Margulis
>>>> <margulisd@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows 
>>>>> and
>>>>> orphans and which is which, and we straightened out that history
>>>>> (Gregg's Reference Manual got the definitions reversed and Microsoft
>>>>> followed their lead, but that's not what I'm here for). The second
>>>>> question was when the word _orphan_ (in its typographic sense) showed 
>>>>> up.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, the earliest reference to orphans is Graphic Arts 
>>>>> Encyclopedia,
>>>>> second edition 1978, George A. Stevenson, McGraw-Hill, Inc., page 260
>>>>> (citation courtesy of Glen Allvord). Widows are mentioned in at least 
>>>>> a
>>>>> few general English dictionaries, but none that we've checked prior to
>>>>> the Third International, which was around 1963 IIRC.
>>>>>
>>>>> My own perusal of "fine press" books from the late 19th and early 20th
>>>>> centuries show a care for avoiding widows but no particular care in
>>>>> avoiding orphans, leading me to think the _idea_ of the orphan is not 
>>>>> as
>>>>> old as the idea of the widow, and thus the word may not have been in 
>>>>> use
>>>>> much before the 1970s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, the hunt is on for written (printed or manuscript), dated
>>>>> citations of orphan prior to 1978 and of widow prior to 1963. A likely
>>>>> place to look would be old composition textbooks or shop manuals, old
>>>>> publishers' style guides, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personal memories don't count. However, I would be particularly
>>>>> interested in whether Claude can shed light on corresponding French
>>>>> terminology. If anyone can translate the question for his benefit, I'd
>>>>> appreciate it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dick
>>>>> http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/
>> 

PhontPhreak wrote:
> Maybe you can search in your references for "hoerenjong" (whore's son) or 
> "weeskind" (orphan).
> (i'm interested reading this thread)
> 


I'm accumulating responses in the comment stream on this blog post:

http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/2007/07/news-flash-widows-are-older-than.html

Dick

I dug out my copies of Polk's The Practice of Printing. Both are
described in the 1926 first, but the names not used. The same
description is carried through to the 1962 edition, which has a
footnote stating that the term "widow" is now used, but 'orphan' is
not mentioned.

bella fortuni wrote:
> I dug out my copies of Polk's The Practice of Printing. Both are
> described in the 1926 first, but the names not used. The same
> description is carried through to the 1962 edition, which has a
> footnote stating that the term "widow" is now used, but 'orphan' is
> not mentioned.


Wm,

I hope you don't mind that I'm preserving your research for posterity on 
my blog (full credit to you, of course). You can comment directly there 
if you wish, too (as can anyone else who's interested).

Dick

Thank you

-- 
http://phontphreak.fateback.com/
(still under construction)


"Dick Margulis" <margulisd@comcast.net> schreef in bericht 
news:139fo7briiljua6@news.supernews.com...
> PhontPhreak wrote:
>> Maybe you can search in your references for "hoerenjong" (whore's son) or 
>> "weeskind" (orphan).
>> (i'm interested reading this thread)
>>
>
>
> I'm accumulating responses in the comment stream on this blog post:
>
> http://ampersandvirgule.blogspot.com/2007/07/news-flash-widows-are-older-than.html
>
> Dick 

Dick Margulis wrote:

> So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows and
> orphans and which is which, ...

Coincidence:

The clue for 92-down in yesterday's NY Times Sunday Puzzle  (15 July 
2007) is "Book printer's no-no", and the answer is "orphan".

  - Ch.

Character wrote:
> Dick Margulis wrote:
> 
>> So a question came up the other day, in another venue, about widows and
>> orphans and which is which, ...
> 
> Coincidence:
> 
> The clue for 92-down in yesterday's NY Times Sunday Puzzle  (15 July 
> 2007) is "Book printer's no-no", and the answer is "orphan".
> 
>  - Ch.


What makes you think that's a coincidence? Will Shortz and I are like 
THIS! <vbg>