Doug Ewell a Ãcrit :
Fraktur is not that different, this is true. One could easily write Greek texts in Coptic and they would be legible (they would obviously not use the original Coptic letters for the original Coptic sounds).As I've said before, I don't know enough about the historical relationship between Phoenician and Hebrew to get involved in this bloodbath. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how Fraktur keeps getting dragged into it. For heaven's sake, it's not THAT unrecognizably different from Antiqua.
Which could maybe only show that he knows both scripts (Latin and Fraktur)...Since the gauntlet had been thrown down, I did go ahead and format some Vietnamese text samples in Fraktur or SÃtterlin, and showed the samples to a Vietnamese co-worker who moved to the U.S. sometime after high school. He had absolutely no problem reading the Fraktur, and said there are plenty of examples of Fraktur in Vietnam (mostly decorative, or in documents from the 1950s and earlier).
He couldn't understand the
SÃtterlin at all, but did recognize it as handwriting and not, say, a
secret code or child's doodling.
Yes, you are right SÃtterlin is that different. Even if, with a little bit of Fraktur training and knowing the language of the text written in it, the text would become legible by guessing the letters that are too different. But I am not sure this (guessing the unknown forms) would not be true with a text written in a different but neighbouring script. But I understand this would not even be possible by modern day (Square) Hebrew readers when confronted with Paleo-Hebrew. Which seems to settle the script identity question for me.
P. .A
