Talk:ſ

One question

Why is it that poſseſs is written as such, and not as poſſeſs, and also why is successful written ſucceſsful and not ſucceſſful? Is it so that when ss is present, only the first one is substituted with an ſ and the other one left intact? --BiT 04:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Often, yes (hence the eszett: ſs → ß & ſz → ß — hence the name Eszett — “ess-zed”). However, I have also seen ‘ss’ written as ‘ſſ’ and ‘st’ often becomes ‘st’ instead of ‘ſt’. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've have yet to see the use of ſs in any documents I've come across. A book I've read, An Experimental Inquiry into the Properties of Blood by William Hewson in 1764, makes excessive use of the ſſ combination. Notably in words like profeſſor and Veſſels. I am not, of course, stating that ſs is absolutely dubious, but until I, or we, can find sources stating the preferred use of ſs over ſſ, I would consider the claimed preference incorrect. William Hewson was undoubtedly an educated man, so his use isn't due to any faux pas. I hope to see this matter resolved quickly and I thank anyone ahead of time who looks into this. Ásmóðr Vánagandsson (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

a) Over time there were different ways of using ſ and s. b) In the quote it's actually "poſſeſs" & "ſucceſsful". Most likely it's usually s at the end of words and ſ elsewhere (e.g. poſſeſs), but in some way extended to compounds (e.g. ſucceſsful = ſucceſs+ful). — This unsigned comment was added by 80.133.125.77 (talk) at 20:29, 3 March 2015‎.

husband / houſewife

@-sche: Three quotations at housewivery use alehouſe//houſewivery/houſe-wives but husband/husbandman/husbandry. What could be the reason (that would be added as a usage note)? J3133 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps they still perceived husband as a compound word, or perhaps it's just because ſ would either aesthetically or physically (in terms of the piece used to print the letter) clash with the ascender of b. If we can find sources discussing that (I suspect we can, and it's also a reason some works use ſs and not ſſ), that would indeed be good to add. Another thing we're missing is that some (old) works use ſ everywhere, uniformly, even at the end of words. I'm more familiar with that practice outside of English, but I did encounter it just recently in an older English heraldic work; I'll have to see if I can relocate it. (Or perhaps just search for some likely scannos like "gulef", ha.) - -sche (discuss) 17:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)