English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I was wondering why these two letters (capital 'I' and lowercase 'L') look the same in some fonts? Is there any historical reason?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Carlo_R., tchrist, RegDwigнt Mar 2 '13 at 17:47

Questions on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange are expected to relate to English language and usage within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Your question is not clear. Do you mean "do they look the same" in some fonts? – James McLeod Mar 2 '13 at 14:01
In black-letter typefaces they look nothing like each other. – nyan nyan nyan Mar 2 '13 at 14:43
@JamesMcLeod Yes. I'm sorry. I mean "look the same". – Pedram Behroozi Mar 2 '13 at 15:18
Bad font design? – terdon Mar 2 '13 at 16:31
@terdon No, in sans-serif fonts they're just vertical lines. How is it bad font design if two vertical lines look exactly the same? They do! – Mr Lister Mar 2 '13 at 17:18
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Each letter evolved from alphabets and symbols of previous languages. The letter I came from the Greek letter iota and the Phoenician yodh. The letter L traces back to lambda in Greek, and the Phoenician lamedh (evidently, some believe these ancestors of L may have been formed based on the shape of a shepherd's staff). You can read more about each letter's history on Wikipedia's pages (here are the links to I and L), and an excellent entry on homoglyphs can be found here. Many print dictionaries have even longer commentaries about the evolution of each letter.

In any case, I don't think the designers of the English alphabet said, "Let's put in two characters that look almost the same!" The letters just happened to evolve the way that they did from earlier alphabets.

Early typewriters sometimes took advantage of these similarities. Many early typewriters didn't even have a 1 key; the numerals started at "2", and typists used a lower-case l to type a numerical "1".

Such similarities may have helped keep the manufacturing costs of a typewriter down low, but look-alike symbols became more problematic in the programming age, so many font designers today take care to keep each character looking distinct. Even o and O and 0 don't look exactly the same in this site's Ge0rgia [sic] font, and the monospaced font makes the zero character (0) look even more unique.

share|improve this answer
Some typists used capital Eye instead of lower case ell for one. Note year "I9I3" slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/02/05/…. – Andrew Lazarus Mar 2 '13 at 18:44
Fair enough. Thanks :) – Pedram Behroozi Mar 2 '13 at 20:35
Regarding recent edits which have been approved by the community, I wonder if J.R. would term that entry as being "excellent". I shall never understand the need of some to either cut out chunks or add in chunks (however small) to user's posts. Fix the grammar, typos, formatting and improve generic titles, but add "words" and "opinions" to someone's piece? – Mari-Lou A Oct 4 '15 at 12:25
@Mari-LouA - It could have been a comment instead of an edit, but no big deal either way. – J.R. Oct 6 '15 at 0:00

In some sans-serif fonts they look almost the same and are difficult to tell apart. These glyphs can also be confused with the pipe character or the number one. This is especially so in a small font size. Also the capital letter "O" and the number zero can look deceivingly similar. A number of Microsoft products uses just such a font in a number of dialog boxes where you type some code, which is very frustrating, as you cannot change the font or size. When you resize such a font to about 20px you can tell those glyphs apart readily.

share|improve this answer
Yes i know. But why? They are clearly confusing, so what was the point? – Pedram Behroozi Mar 2 '13 at 15:50
@PedramBehroozi Poor design, of course, is the only actual answer possible here. – tchrist Mar 2 '13 at 17:44
It's actually fine design. Those fonts aren't meant to be used at small sizes. The reason is: those glyphs in those font designs and in small sizes are not discernible to human eyes. I thought that's obvious. – Chris Mar 3 '13 at 13:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.