Cursively-connected, Redundant ?

From: Patrick Andries (
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 20:25:37 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Back to Hebrew -holem-waw vs waw-holem"

     In section 3.4, UTR No. 20 speaks of « cursively-connected scripts».

    Unicode 4.0's glossary defines cursive as « writing where the letters of a
    word are connected » (I have the same definition in a large French book
    about the history of calligraphy)

     Given this definition, isn't it redundant to speak of cursively-connected
    scripts or are some cursive scripts not characterized by their letters being
    connected(*) ?
    P. A.

    (*) Maybe some early roman cursives from the IInd-IIIrd century A.D ? But
    is the definition of cursive correct then ?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 21:02:01 EDT