Re: Multiple Directions (was: Re: Coptic/Greek (Re: Phoenician))

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Mon May 17 2004 - 13:39:09 CDT

  • Next message: fantasai: "Re: Vertical BIDI"

    At 12:32 -0400 2004-05-17, wrote:
    >Andrew C. West scripsit:
    >> I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm now suggesting that perhaps Ogham
    >> shouldn't be rendered bottom-to-top when embedded in vertical text such as
    >> Mongolian, but top-to-bottom as is the case with other LTR scripts such as
    >> Latin,
    >I follow you. The question is, then, whether T2B

    TTB, not T2B, please.

    >Ogham is legible or not to someone who reads B2T

    BTT, not B2T, please.

    >Ogham fluently -- unfortunately, your texts are all pothooks and
    >tick marks to me. :-) When I asked Michael this point-blank, he
    >replied with a rhetorical question.

    One wished to encourage the use of native wit.

    Ogham has LTR directionality when horizontal, and BTT directionality
    when carved on ancient monuments. Reversing the directionality
    >Still mysterious is the question of whether vertical Ogham columns should
    >be laid out L2R or R2L across the page. I suppose the inscriptions
    >aren't really much help.

    If you took LTR Ogham in lines and turned the paper so that the L was
    at the B, you might get your answer.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 17 2004 - 13:40:11 CDT