> 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 different.">

Unicode Mail List Archive: Re: ISO 15924: Different Arabic scripts? (original) (raw)

Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Exemplar Characters"

From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>
> 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 different.

There are orthographic differences between German written in Fraktur (uses e
and no umlaut), and German in modern Latin (uses umlaut, or e sometimes in
ASCII texts). Also the use of long s in Fraktur is frequent and it forms
many more ligatures.

Well Old French also uses undotted i and j for roman digits, but dotted i
and j in late Ancial. In old Ancial, both uses were undotted (and difficult
to read in words like "minimum" where the distinction between m, n, u and i
is difficult to see as it only depends on the relative space of the vertical
stems, which are irregularwhen shaped manually with a plum).

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 11:32:33 CST