From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 18:01:47 EDT
On Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:42 PM, Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> wrote:
> No. There must be a kind of `dot' for the i and a kind of `breve'
> sign above the u. Additionally, the connecting lines between the
> characters are wider, something like
>
> / / \/
>
> /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|
> |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
It's still readable in the ASCII art as "minimum". But this form is sometimes used abusively by French hand-writters, but is often considered as being abusively "fast" written with badly formed letters.
The normal handscript is roughly like (use proportional font to see it):
o o
n n n l n n l n n n l l n n n
| | | /| / | | /| / | | | /| | / | | |
| | U U | U U | | U U U | | U
where the connecting edges within the letters are clearly above or below, the interletter edges are oblique, and the vertical stems are easily countable and identifiable (this script is learn upright in schools, but often written slightly slanted to the right, with "italic" style). There little variation for the lowercase letter forms, but there are quite a lot for the handwritten uppercase letters, with more or less loopy curves. But due to this tradition (still tought today since the second half of the XIX-th century), this handwritten form is still recognized by most people.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 18:36:23 EDT