Marco Cimarosti wrote:

>
> Adam Walker wrote:
> > Too dependant on rotations and reflections?? More so than
> > hangul?? It
> > seems like it would be difficult to include more rotations
> > and reflection
> > than hangul uses and it works just fine.
>
> It is indeed possible!
>
> Have you ever seen the script used to write Cree and Inuit? It is a
> syllabary where the shape of each letter indicates the consonant, while the
> *rotation* of letters indicates the vowel:
>
> http://www.nunavut.com/nunavut99/english/our.html#2
>
> I have read somewhere that the success of this script among the aboriginal
> nations of Canada and northern USA depended exactly on its relying on the
> *orientation* of letters, because orientation and the cardinal directions
> (North, South, East, West) have a very important role in the culture of
> these peoples.
>
> But, honestly, I have no idea whether this idea has some rational ground, or
> is just one more myth about human cultures.
>
> I also don't know which basis has of the opposite view (that rotations and
> reflections are bad for a writing system); I guess that it comes from some
> ergonomic evaluation of human visual capabilities.

My objection was not to rotations and reflections per se (after all,
we've had p q b d for about 1000 years now), but to the overall great
similarity among the characters devised bye original poster, whose name
has been snipped to oblivion from the tops of these postings. It was at
least as bad as the Shaw Alphabet.

BTW I see neither rotations nor reflections in hangul! The letters are
clearly top-left-oriented, and anyway are brush-written so symmetry
always gives way to gracefulness.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...