RE: Glyph Stance

From: Mike Ayers (
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 13:53:52 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: Why Fraktur is irrelevant (was RE: Fraktur Legibility (was Re: Response to Everson Phoenician)"

            Hopefully this doesn't veer OT, but let's see if we have agreement
    or not...

    From: saqqara []
    Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:22 AM

    > In the case of Toys <mirror>R</mirror> Us, stating the R is incorrect is
    > a value judgement..

            If one is speakinging in terms of English orthography, then this is
    not a value judgement, it is a simple statement of fact. The "R" is turned
    backwards to evoke the backwards letters often written by children still
    learning to read and write.

    > You cannot presume as fact these constructions are 'to get attention',

            If they're advertising? No, I feel pretty safe making a universal
    statement that the purpose of advertising is to get attention. Do you
    really consider this controversial?

    > may be to produce a more pleasing symmetry or communicate meaning, just as
    > the Egyptians had a different notion of writing than is supported by our
    > more functional alphabetic scripts. Although my gut feeling agrees with
    > yours on plain text implications for Latin script, I haven't studied the
    > subject in depth so I may well be wrong.

            We're talking about my only language here. There is no implicit
    meaning gained by glitching characters other than "buy X" or "subscribe to
    belief Y", which does not add meaning to the words, just the letters that
    are glitched. Nor does the glitching improve symmetry - it destroys it,
    which is why it gets attention - it stand out precisely because it is wrong.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 13:55:16 CDT