Patrick Andries a Ãcrit :
Mark E. Shoulson a Ãcrit :
> Well, it doesn't need to be a wedding invitation, does it? I'll give it a try;
> I've downloaded a SÃtterlin font, and I'll type up a small document and
> see if I can get some English-readers to read it or recognize it.
> Even if they can't read it, I'll bet they can recognize it as Latin letters and possibly English,
> which was not so for Paleo-Hebrew and Hebrew.
Not at all obvious to me :
http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/~pandries/suetterlin.jpg
(sorry already mentioned)
Could just as well be some Cyrillic or foreign (Tolkien ?) cursive for the average reader. But I agree -- as you mention in another message -- that people will not think this is a set of random symbols and would know how to turn the piece of paper on which it is written, mostly because of the cursivity and linking of the letters and the presence of numerals. Still, I believe this will not be perceived as the same script as Latin by readers of the Latin script (I'm not even sure young Germans would be able to recognize it without training).
P. A.
(who will also stop on this subject since we seem to be rehashing the same arguments)
(someone asked for a Phoenician / Hebrew dictionary sample to prove the need of plaintext distinctions, I have not found one but would it be more convincing that this ?
http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/~pandries/dico-fraktur-latin.pdf)
