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.
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.
Yes, exactly that.
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?
Arabic dots: AFAIK they were originally added to reduce ambiguity, so...
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.
As a kid, I quite liked them. As a kid.
To answer the first question… I’d have to understand it. :-(
How if "l" is made hook-free, f and "t" are made cross-free with right hooks respectively on the top and bottom?
Happy Fast-breaking Holidays 1441H/2020
May God forgive All our and your ins and outs, and
You could do that if you wanted the f and t to be unrecognizable.
Anyway, please note there is no "cross sign" in these letters. They have an intersection of constitutive forms that are reminiscent of the bars you find in majuscules F and T. They are definitively not "crosses with hooks".
Scripts and letters have cultural and historical background. If you find playing with dots inadequate or even disrespectful to Arabic, you can understand the same criterion applies to Latin.
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,
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:
All the Best for All with Flowers. https://t.me/FlowerCrosswords
Looking forward to translating her Romanized Malay transliteration through this contest https://T.me/FlowerCrosswords/72
But your new t and i would look awfully similar to each other. And just generally making these four letters more similar to each other when before they were in two pairs, is probably not going to be good for legibility. (Although I guess they will all be less like any other letters, so that is a plus.)
Hope that will be promising for legibility!