Latin without Cross Sign and Arabic Without Dots

AzizMostafaAzizMostafa Posts: 75
edited May 27 in Education
Dear Friends,

Is it possible to remove the Cross sign from the Latin letters "f" and "t" without sacrificing readability?!



2. Why unnecessary dots are added sometimes to the Latin text?



3. Is it possible to remove dots from the Arabic text without sacrificing readability, as shown below?!


Comments, feedback and suggestions are welcome.

All the Best for All with Flowers https://t.me/FlowerCrosswords/68

Comments

  • André G. IsaakAndré G. Isaak Posts: 472
    "Why unnecessary dots are added sometimes to the Latin text?"

    Unless you are referring to the faux-arabic example you give above (in which case the dots are there to make it look arabic), I don't really understand what you are asking about. Or are you viewing the dots in i and j as unnecessary?

    The dot on the i may not seem necessary for legibility in printed text, but try reading the word 'minimum' in cursive or tightly-spaced blackletter without the dots. They definitely contribute to legibility. Since j is historically just a variant of i it inherited the dot.
  • AzizMostafaAzizMostafa Posts: 75
    André G. Isaak said:
    "Why unnecessary dots are added sometimes to the Latin text?"

    Unless you are referring to the faux-arabic example you give above (in which case the dots are there to make it look arabic), I don't really understand what you are asking about. Or are you viewing the dots in i and j as unnecessary?

    @ To make it look Arabic and more confusing?! Or just to make fun of Arabic dots?!

  • Adam JagoszAdam Jagosz Posts: 605
    edited May 27
    You can use the handwritten form of f for a less "Christian" appearance:

    And some people write "t" similarly as in the Sutterlin script or Kurrentschrift:



    Oh, and some fonts simply leave out the left part of the cross-stroke (e.g. Ubuntu):

    @ To make it look Arabic and more confusing?! Or just to make fun of Arabic dots?!
    Yes, exactly that.
  • Adam JagoszAdam Jagosz Posts: 605
    edited May 27
    Btw, how do we write C avoiding the crescent shape?!
  • John HudsonJohn Hudson Posts: 1,851
    1. No. The crossbars of f and t are integral to these letters. Without them, f looks like ſ (long s, which sometimes has a spur on the left side, but sometimes is just thehook and stem), and t can be mistaken for l.

    2. In the green text? This is stylised to mimic the appearance of Arabic letters. The dots are just there to make it look more Arabic. It's pretty silly.

    3. Removing the disambiguating dots from Arabic letters is going to introduce possible ambiguous readings. I thought for a moment that maybe colour was being using to disambiguate in that example, but then saw that three different colours were used for ط so apparently not distinguishing ط and ظ?
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,620
    edited May 27
    Well Vafflard did get rid of half of the bars, way back... In the "f" even completely removing it is pretty safe in terms of legibility (because only type designers and historicists know what a long-s is) but not readability; however in the "t" it would be an unmitigated disaster. (BTW every time I see a long-s I hear a lisp in my head, like from an upper-class twit from Monty Python. :-)

    Arabic dots: AFAIK they were originally added to reduce ambiguity, so...
  • André G. IsaakAndré G. Isaak Posts: 472


    André G. Isaak said:
    "Why unnecessary dots are added sometimes to the Latin text?"

    Unless you are referring to the faux-arabic example you give above (in which case the dots are there to make it look arabic), I don't really understand what you are asking about. Or are you viewing the dots in i and j as unnecessary?

    @ To make it look Arabic and more confusing?! Or just to make fun of Arabic dots?!

    As I said, to make it look Arabic. I doubt their intention was to make it confusing or to make fun of Arabic dots, though you'd really have to ask the designer about that. But I suspect that without the dots many might not recognize it as a faux Arabic given that the majority of English speakers (I suspect) are more likely to picture Naskh when they think of Arabic than they are Kufi.
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,620
    Long live –judicious– cultural exchange between scripts.
    https://www.flickr.com/groups/cross-script-letterforms/
  • John SavardJohn Savard Posts: 590
    edited May 27
    If someone were to remove the dots from the Arabic script, the result would be equivalent to, in the Latin alphabet, using one letter for both d and t, another letter for both b and p, and a third letter for both g and k. That would reduce readability.
    The cross-stroke in f and t is indeed needed for legibility, but one could have an equally legible alphabet for writing Latin-alphabet languages if, say, one replaced the letter f by, say, the Greek theta, and the letter t by the Greek delta. One could use Cyrillic as a guide to get lower-case letters that would fit in. Or should I say "leддers дhaд would ѳiд in".
    Versions of the Latin script have been made into typefaces that imitate the Thai script, the Chinese script, Devanagari, the Hebrew script... as well as Arabic. Some still say that such imitations of other scripts are not necessarily offensive, even today. Even though they can be used in contexts where they're not intended to give offence, I've noted that there will be many who prefer to err on the side of caution... and I've given that as a reason for the current popularity of the typeface Papyrus.

  • "Faux" typefaces, if done “formally and superficially” are very embarassing.
    As a kid, I quite liked them. As a kid.

    To answer the first question… I’d have to understand it. :-(
  • Igor FreibergerIgor Freiberger Posts: 160
    edited May 28
    Aziz, it seems you also need to change X, Ð, 4, 8, +, #, &, £, ₽, and many others.
  • AzizMostafaAzizMostafa Posts: 75
    Well, there are mainly three letters to distinguish, namely, l, f and t? Right?
    How if "l" is made hook-free, f and "t" are made cross-free with right hooks respectively on the top and bottom?
  • AzizMostafaAzizMostafa Posts: 75
    edited May 28
    3. Removing the disambiguating dots from Arabic letters is going to introduce possible ambiguous readings. I thought for a moment that maybe colour was being using to disambiguate in that example, but then saw that three different colours were used for ط so apparently not distinguishing ط and ظ?
    Well, that's a well-known greeting exchanged by south East Asians during the Fast-breaking Holidays in Arabic Malay (Jawi, Pegon, or Gundul) script that reads:
    Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri 1441H/2020 =1441H/2020 سلامت هاري راي عيد الفطري
    Maaf Zahir Dan Batin = معاف ظاهير دان باطين
    Minal Aidin Wal Faizin = من العائدين والفائزين
    and roughly translates into English:
                            Happy Fast-breaking Holidays 1441H/2020
                            May God forgive All our and your ins and outs, and
                            Praying that All are winners & returnees for the next Fasting Month.
    2. The greeting has been colored to celebrate these days.
    3. Still awaiting the feedback by someone form there who is acquainted with Arabic Malay (Jawi, Pegon, or Gundul).

  • André G. IsaakAndré G. Isaak Posts: 472
    AzizMostafa said:
    Well, there are mainly three letters to distinguish, namely, l, f and t? Right?
    How if "l" is made hook-free, f and "t" are made cross-free with right hooks respectively on the top and bottom?
    You could do that if you wanted the f and t to be unrecognizable.
  • AzizMostafaAzizMostafa Posts: 75
    edited May 29
    If someone were to remove the dots from the Arabic script, the result would be equivalent to, in the Latin alphabet, using one letter for both d and t, another letter for both b and p, and a third letter for both g and k. That would reduce readability.
    Not as confusing as you think as dots are not so discriminating making letters readable without them. The Arabic-minded will intuitively go on adding them to differentiate not only
    1. the one-dotted ف from the two-dotted ق,
              but also the dotted that share shapes with the dot-less, as follows:
    2. one dot above to differentiate ذ from د .
    3. one dot above to differentiate ز from ر
    4. one dot above to differentiate ض from ص .
    5. one dot above to differentiate غ from ع .
    6. one dot above to differentiate ظ from ط
    7. one dot below or above to differentiate ج and خ from ح .
    8. three dots above to differentiate ش from س , and the most challenging one is to add,
    9. one, two dots above or below or three dots above to differentiate ب ن ت ث from ى .
    Happy exploring with Flowers
  • John HudsonJohn Hudson Posts: 1,851
    Early Arabic manuscripts were written without dots, which is one of the things that makes Quranic textual studies such an interesting subject. Yes, it is possible to mentally add the dots in many contexts, but often those contexts are informed by assumptions about the text. The root system of Arabic can be both helpful and misleading when dots are missing: it will sometimes help determine the probable identity of a word in context, but in other situations will present ambiguities of meaning which can only be resolved with addition of the disambiguating dots.
  • AzizMostafaAzizMostafa Posts: 75
    Early Arabic manuscripts were written without dots, which is one of the things that makes Quranic textual studies such an interesting subject. Yes, it is possible to mentally add the dots in many contexts, but often those contexts are informed by assumptions about the text. The root system of Arabic can be both helpful and misleading when dots are missing: it will sometimes help determine the probable identity of a word in context, but in other situations will present ambiguities of meaning which can only be resolved with addition of the disambiguating dots.
    Absolutely true!

    Arabs did not make use of dots before the Glorious Quran. Dots then marks were later developed by Arabs for non-Arabs. Nowadays, Arabs overlook the mistakes made in dotting and marking words communicated through Computers or Mobiles that are still not so well-developed. That's why we have published this free and friendly telegram and computer application:

    https://typedrawers.com/discussion/3631/flying-high-quranic-arabic-jawi-pegon-gundul-fonts

    All the Best for All with Flowers. https://t.me/FlowerCrosswords

  • AzizMostafaAzizMostafa Posts: 75
    edited July 2
    On 26.06.2020, I received a worthy feedback in Jawi (Arabic-Based Malay) from a Malaysian teacher named Haj Hamdan Abdul Rahamn through the telegram (https://Telegram.org/) group: http://T.me/joinchat/A5lgLUKF8yLAIBj9FtoDBg.
    Removing the dots from his reply, I launched this transliteration contest through (https://T.me/FonJawi/569).

    Fortunately, last night,  a Malaysian teacher from Selangor responded through
    Her name is Miss Afifah Tamyes and she has won a copy of QalamBatar (Attached QB-English)

    Looking forward to translating her Romanized Malay transliteration through this contest https://T.me/FlowerCrosswords/72
    All the Best for All with Flowers
Sign In or Register to comment.