Latin without Cross Sign and Arabic Without Dots
AzizMostafa AzizAli
Posts: 103
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
0
Comments
-
"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.
0 -
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?
0 -
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):AzizMostafa said:@ To make it look Arabic and more confusing?! Or just to make fun of Arabic dots?!2
-
Btw, how do we write C avoiding the crescent shape?!
3 -
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?1 -
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...0 -
AzizMostafa said: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?0 -
Long live –judicious– cultural exchange between scripts.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/cross-script-letterforms/
0 -
Replace all crossroads with roundabouts.
6 -
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.
0 -
"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. :-(0 -
Aziz, it seems you also need to change X, Ð, 4, 8, +, #, &, £, ₽, and many others.2
-
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?
0 -
John Hudson said: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?Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri 1441H/2020 =1441H/2020 سلامت هاري راي عيد الفطريMaaf Zahir Dan Batin = معاف ظاهير دان باطينMinal Aidin Wal Faizin = من العائدين والفائزينand roughly translates into English:
Happy Fast-breaking Holidays 1441H/2020
May God forgive All our and your ins and outs, andPraying 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).
0 -
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?2 -
Aziz, you can simply use small caps to avoid f and t.
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.6 -
John Savard said: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 only1. 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 Flowers0 -
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.0
-
John Hudson said: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.
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
0 -
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 throughHer name is Miss Afifah Tamyes and she has won a copy of QalamBatar (Attached QB-English)All the Best for All with Flowers
Looking forward to translating her Romanized Malay transliteration through this contest https://T.me/FlowerCrosswords/72
1 -
Hi Friends,Looking forward to seeing the Cross of letters "f" & "t" and the dots of letters "i" & "j" replaced with the flower-like asterisk (*) .So, why exchanging the Cross? Why not exchanging Flowers?All the Best with Flowers0
-
AzizMostafa AzizAli said:Hi Friends,Looking forward to seeing the Cross of letters "f" & "t" and the dots of letters "i" & "j" replaced with the flower-like asterisk (*) .So, why exchanging the Cross? Why not exchanging Flowers?All the Best with Flowers
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.)0 -
Adam Jagosz said:AzizMostafa said:@ To make it look Arabic and more confusing?! Or just to make fun of Arabic dots?!Since he presented two opposing possibilities, that is not actually an illuminating answer.Why do people use typefaces which resemble the script of a different language?The most common reason is to indicate that a product or service is related to the culture that uses that language. Thus, for example, a restaurant that serves Chinese food might use a typeface constructed from brushstrokes, resembling those from which Chinese characters are drawn, for the sign giving the name of the restaurant.That way, the restaurant is saying "I am Chinese" without the sign being in Chinese, which the customers they hoping to attract cannot read.So the intent isn't to make fun of the Chinese writing system, nor is it to confuse those who are reading the sign.1
-
Thomas Phinney said:Certainly, you could do that for fun or as an experiment.
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.)Ya, worth experimenting!In addition to t and i, have you not regarded how words with double t and double f will look like?! Wont they fly high flowers as Arabic does with its petal-like letters, especially (هـ)?
Hope that will be promising for legibility!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 40 Introductions
- 3.7K Typeface Design
- 795 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 614 Type Business
- 444 Type Design Critiques
- 539 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 136 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 83 Technique and Theory
- 53 Lettering Critiques
- 482 Typography
- 301 History of Typography
- 114 Education
- 67 Resources
- 495 Announcements
- 79 Events
- 105 Job Postings
- 148 Type Releases
- 162 Miscellaneous News
- 269 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 116 Suggestions and Bug Reports