From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Mon May 17 2004 - 13:39:09 CDT
At 12:32 -0400 2004-05-17, jcowan@reutershealth.com 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 * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 17 2004 - 13:40:11 CDT