From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 10 2007 - 11:30:53 CDT
On May 10, 2007, at 2:15 AM, John Hudson wrote:
> The fact that it is easier to decipher text when the bottom half is
> covered than when the top half is covered is an accident of the
> evolution of Latin letterforms, not a clue to how we read normal
> text. The arrangement of features could just as easily produce the
> opposite and equally accidental result.
Nope. Perhaps it's originally an accident that Roman letters
primarily differ at the top, but we have become so used to that fact
that we will notice differences in the top halves of letters more
than similar differences at the bottom. Scott Kim has pointed out
that in a cursive context, we see one letter when the top strokes are
joined (even if the bottoms are separate) and two letters when the
top strokes are separate (even if the bottoms are joined).
For that matter, it's hard to think of a script (other than Oriya and
Chinese, perhaps) where differences are *not* concentrated in the top
half of the letter.
> John Hudson
-- Marnen Laibow-Koser email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 10 2007 - 11:33:03 CDT