Gareth Hughes wrote:
I agree with you that these categories that are logical to Latin typefaces, and can be extended to Greek and Cyrillic, are less than helpful in describing other scripts. Yes, we are faced with the awfulness of 'italic' Arabic and Syriac, which is little more than an ugly borrowing from Latin faces. These scripts have their own ways to give emphasis. We don't use the names 'Nestorian' or 'Jacobite' to refer to script styles in Syriac, as they are derogatory. Even so, many books continue this use. We use 'Estrangela/o' to refer to the classical script, 'Serto' to refer to western script and 'Madnha' to refer to eastern script. That said, I've seen manuscripts use mixtures of these styles in the same work, even within the same word!
Many thanks for the explanation and clarification, Gareth. If I have offended anyone by referring to 'Nestorian' or 'Jacobite' in this context, I sincerely apologise : I was using the terms used by Daniels and Bright, whom I had (perhaps mistakenly) assumed would be cautious in their use of potentially pejorative terms. ** Phil. -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
