Re: New contribution

From: Patrick Andries (
Date: Thu May 06 2004 - 07:17:57 CDT

Doug Ewell a écrit :

>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.
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).

>Since the gauntlet had been thrown down, I did go ahead and format some
>Vietnamese text samples in Fraktur or Sütterlin, 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).
Which could maybe only show that he knows both scripts (Latin and

> He couldn't understand the
>Sütterlin at all, but did recognize it as handwriting and not, say, a
>secret code or child's doodling.

Yes, you are right Sütterlin 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:26 CDT