Sounds like time for a written language comparison page. ;-)
Bill
"Angus B. Grieve-Smith" wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Valerie Sutton wrote:
>
> > I guess "real" to them means "established" or "something that looks
> > exactly like the Roman alphabet"...
>
> That's a funny one too. Newkirk notation uses the Roman alphabet,
> and no one seems too interested in it. Apparently the SignFont committee
> rejected that aspect of it, because they wanted something a bit different
> from the Roman alphabet!
>
> My understanding is that these are common reactions to almost any
> proposed alphabet: one group thinks it should look just like the Roman
> alphabet, and the other thinks it should be somewhat different, to reflect
> the difference in cultures.
>
> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith
> Linguistics Department
> University of New Mexico
>
|
SignWriting List Forum