From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 09:41:24 CDT
On 26/05/2004 06:29, Christopher Fynn wrote:
> Peter Kirk wrote:
>> If Fraktur and ordinary Latin are the same script, then it couldn't
>> be said that the Germans abandoned the Fraktur script after WWII.
>> Yet, that is what available references say did happen. Well, I
>> haven't checked, but I remember reading this kind of thing.
> Fraktur was dropped during the *middle* of the war . On 3 January
> 1941 Martin Bormann declared Fraktur to be /"Judenlettern"/ (Jewish
> letters) and prohibited it's further use. ...
Thank you, and thanks to others, for the correction.
> ... The fact that this style of script was abandoned overnight and
> other styles of Latin script used is a pretty clear indication that
> they are the same script (unless you subscribe to Bormann's theory).
And so the fact that in the previous year Latin scripts were abandoned
overnight, by decree of Stalin, for Azerbaijani and many other languages
of the Soviet Union, and replaced by Cyrillic, is a pretty clear
indication that Latin and Cyrillic are the same script? Or the similar
decree in Turkey in the 1920's indicates that Arabic and Latin are the
But then perhaps Bormann's theory lies behind the reluctance of some to
accept use of square Aramaic characters (the ones currently labelled
"Hebrew" in Unicode) for languages other than those of Jews? Well,
perhaps not, I don't want to start an anti-anti-Semitism witchhunt.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 09:43:07 CDT