From: Andreas Prilop (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 10:21:48 CST
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>>> Specifically, a book of
>>> Schiller's poetry might be published in Fraktur
>>> orthography or in Roman orthography,
> This wasn't Michael's question. He asked whether Naskh and Nastaliq
> were distinguished by having different *orthographies* -- that is,
> whether certain words are actually spelled differently when written in
> these Arabic-script variants, not merely whether the letterforms look
Sorry, I cannot see this. The example was about Schiller in Fraktur
or Roman ("Antiqua"). There is *no* difference in orthography
between Fraktur and Antiqua (= normal Latin) in German.
Why are normal Latin and Fraktur separate (sub-)scripts in ISO 15924
when the argument is different orthographies?
There is no orthographic difference between Latf and Latn
What are the orthographic differences between Hans and Hant?
> If there are no orthographic distinctions, you have to ask whether the
> real use in this would be to distinguish visual styles,
For example, Nastaliq has U+06C1 and U+06C3
where Naskh has U+0647 and U+0629.
> There would probably have to be either an orthographic difference of
> some sort (certain words are spelled differently) or a genuine literacy
> threshold (a noticeable percentage of readers of one variant are unable
> to read the other) in order to consider this a separate script.
I suspect that many Arabs have difficulties reading Persian or Urdu
Nastaliq is a *two-dimensional* script as can be seen from
the following sample images.
From http://www.sil.org/computing/fonts/NastaliqNavees_doc.html :
From http://salrc.uchicago.edu/resources/fonts/urdufonts.html :
I consider the difference between Naskh and Nastaliq greater
than between Latin and Latin (Fraktur) and perhaps comparable
to Hans vs. Hant.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 18 2005 - 10:26:20 CST