From: Gregg Reynolds (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jun 14 2005 - 20:10:14 CDT
David Starner wrote:
> On 6/14/05, Gregg Reynolds <email@example.com> wrote:
>>Peter Constable wrote:
>>>Think about it: why does someone want to colour part of a ligature
>>>differently than the remainder of the ligature? Probably because they
>>>are discussing something to do with the letterform itself. There's just
>>>as much likelihood, I think, of someone talking about the cross-bar of a
>>Now why would you take your own inability to imagine something as
>>evidence that there is nothing to be imagined? Tsk. To anybody who
>>knows Arabic the usefulness of such coloring is quite obvious; M.
>>Kural's response is correct. I've seen elementary school texts that use
> The point is, they do so in talking about the letterform itself.
Sorry, wrong. Spectacularly wrong. Nothing personal, but the point is,
if you don't speak/read Arabic, why speculate about how Arabic speakers
view their own language? Ditto for any other language you care to
mention. The point is, the cross bar of the "t" and the dot in "i" have
no semantic value. The lam in lam-alif has semantic value.
> sure there are elementary school texts that color the cross-bar of the
> t or the dot of the i, too.
How sure are you?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 14 2005 - 20:10:34 CDT