Doug Ewell wrote at 8:28 AM on Monday, May 24, 2004:
>Remember, I've already performed a similar experiment. Supposedly
>Vietnamese wasn't legible in Fraktur. Well, I printed out some
>Vietnamese in Fraktur (without diacritics, which made the Vietnamese
>even harder to recognize), and my Vietname
At 11:23 -0400 2004-05-25, Dean Snyder wrote:
2) I used only capital letters, since they mirror more closely the
legibility issues associated with Old Canaanite legibility.
Invalidating your "test" because German Fraktur of that style was not
typically set in all caps, and native Germans fluent in
Michael Everson wrote at 5:02 PM on Tuesday, May 25, 2004:
>At 11:23 -0400 2004-05-25, Dean Snyder wrote:
>
>>2) I used only capital letters, since they mirror more closely the
>>legibility issues associated with Old Canaanite legibility.
>
>Invalidating your "test" because German Fraktur of that
Dean Snyder scripsit:
> So, you are saying there are glyph streams in German Fraktur that fluent,
> native Germans would have trouble reading.
And in Antiqua too. Consider "O0OO000O0O0OOO000O0OO000O0O0OO0".
--
John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Pengu
At 14:01 -0400 2004-05-25, Dean Snyder wrote:
>Invalidating your "test" because German Fraktur of that style was not
>typically set in all caps, and native Germans fluent in Fraktur would
>have had trouble reading it.
So, you are saying there are glyph streams in German Fraktur that fluent,
nati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dean Snyder scripsit:
So, you are saying there are glyph streams in German Fraktur that fluent,
native Germans would have trouble reading.
This reminds me of a game played by scriptorium monks in the Middle Ages. The textura
style of blackletter, especially when written
Michael Everson wrote:
>> 2) I used only capital letters, since they mirror more closely the
>> legibility issues associated with Old Canaanite legibility.
>
> Invalidating your "test" because German Fraktur of that style was not
> typically set in all caps, and native Germans fluent in Fraktur wo
At 11:06 PM 5/25/2004, Doug Ewell wrote:
But then Dean responded:
> So, you are saying there are glyph streams in German Fraktur that
> fluent, native Germans would have trouble reading.
I consider myself moderately native, definitely of German origin, and
arguably somewhat fluent in reading Fraktu
Asmus Freytag wrote at 12:04 AM on Wednesday, May 26, 2004:
>Difficulties in reading a script may explain why it has been abandoned
>but they don't argue for or against encoding it. Otherwise, my handwriting,
>set to type would be a shoo-in. ;-)
Precisely my point for those who ran Palaeo-Hebrew
Title: Re: Fraktur Legibility (was Re: Response to Everson Phoenician)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Dean Snyder
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 8:41 AM
> We also have to remember that the Siloam inscription test:
> * was in "han
Mike Ayers wrote at 10:37 AM on Wednesday, May 26, 2004:
>Dean Snyder:
>> We also have to remember that the Siloam inscription test:
>> * was in "handwriting" incised in stone
>
> Does this mean that the form of the characters in the Siloam
>inscription were different from those typically u
Title: RE: [BULK] - Re: Fraktur Legibility (was Re: Response to Everson Phoenician)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Dean Snyder
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 11:01 AM
> So, you are saying there are glyph streams in German Fraktur
> that f
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Dean Snyder
Dean:
You've done an interesting, controlled test. I think you made things in
overly difficult by using all uppercase, but I'm not really interested
in critiquing the test methodology.
I'm interested in whether discus
Peter Constable wrote at 10:42 AM on Tuesday, May 25, 2004:
>Let's say that you have adequately demonstrated that Fraktur text is not
>legible to most Latin speakers. (This can be disputed since there is
>some measure of legibility -- all of your subjects did recognize some
>portions of the text.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Dean Snyder
> >[Legibility] is not the only consideration in whether we do unify
> >characters, however, and the situation wrt Fraktur does not tell us
> >anything additional that pertains to that issue.
>
> But the alleged illegi
Dean Snyder wrote:
Peter Constable wrote at 10:42 AM on Tuesday, May 25, 2004:
Let's say that you have adequately demonstrated that Fraktur text is not
legible to most Latin speakers. (This can be disputed since there is
some measure of legibility -- all of your subjects did recognize some
porti
Peter Constable wrote at 1:36 PM on Tuesday, May 25, 2004:
>- In the case of PH, some / all Semitic paleographers consider these to
>be the same characters as square Hebrew characters. There are others,
>however, who do not.
I recall no one saying they are not the same characters.
>Can we agree
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Dean Snyder
> >Can we agree to drop the discussion of Fraktur now?
>
> A better way to put this, and the only reason I brought up Fraktur to
> begin with, is to ask, Can we agree to drop the legibility argument
for
> Phoenician? O
On 26/05/2004 11:56, Peter Constable wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
Of Dean Snyder
Can we agree to drop the discussion of Fraktur now?
A better way to put this, and the only reason I brought up Fraktur to
begin with, is to ask, Can we agree
> From: Peter Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:08 PM
> >Legibility is *one* consideration. Certainly we must use it
consistently
> >wrt PH as for other cases. But now that we have established what that
> >means (some people find PH used for Hebrew text to be illegi
> From: Peter Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:44 PM
> Well, what are these technical issues? The only technical issue
> concerning which there have been "repeated requests", at least since
the
> early stages of this thread which I may have forgotten, has been the
On 26/05/2004 13:37, Peter Constable wrote:
...
If we can all agree that legibility is not a sufficient criterion on
its
own for encoding Phoenician and Palaeo-Hebrew separately, then let's
indeed move on and see if there are any other technical arguments for
separate encoding. I don't reme
Peter Constable wrote at 1:37 PM on Wednesday, May 26, 2004:
>there are technical issues that the pro-unification camp
>has not yet, that I've noticed, responded to after repeated
> requests
I don't recall any - what are they?
Respectfully,
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
Manager,
23 matches
Mail list logo
