From: Otto Stolz (Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de)
Date: Thu May 27 2004 - 10:13:55 CDT
I am German, and I read both Roman (Antiqua) and Fraktur equally
fluently. Hence I think, I have to correct some wrong claims
issued in this thread.
Peter Kirk wrote:
> A. Most Germans read texts in upper case Latin characters fluently.
Texts in all upper-case Latin characters are read by far less fluently
than the usual spelling in mixed case.
> B. Most Germans cannot read texts in upper case Fraktur characters.
> (partly demonstrated by Dean and apparently accepted by all)
Fraktur characters are not designed to be used in all upper-case text
as has been stated before, in this thread. Nobody is used to this sort
of pseudo script; hence, nobody will read it fluently. This observation
renders the whole Uppercase-Fraktur issue pointless.
> C. [...] (derived from A and B)
> D. [...] (derived from C)
With the propositions proved wrong, this whole chain of reasoning
> K. [Dependent on I] Upper case Fraktur should be encoded separately from
> Latin (derived from D and I)
Roman (aka Antiqua) and Fraktur are used to write the same language
(e. g. German) with the same orthography. As there is no particular
encoding for Fraktur, the very same text can be displayed in either
Roman or Fraktur without recoding it. I do not want this isomorphy
to be broken.
These two variants of the Latin script are really not so different
as some contributors in this thread are assuming. I have learned
to read Fraktur without formal training: As most books available
when I learned to read (in 1949) were set in Fraktur, I just read
them (though at school we had books set in Antiqua).
I think that the case of old Phoenician vs. Hebrew is different, as
there is no underlying common language and orthography -- but then
I do know next to nothing about these scripts, so do not take this
latter remark too seriously.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 27 2004 - 10:16:01 CDT