On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 05:27:09PM +0000, á?³á??á?¤á?? á?«á??á??á?¥ wrote:

> It seems the recurring theme is that "new technology hurts
> alphabets"

I think it more that change happens, and that technology is a great
inducer of change. I especially wouldn't say hurts; computers made
decent mathematical typesetting feasible - I don't know what made it
feasible prior to 1900, but I know at its nadir in the 1950s, there was
a number of math books printed that were photocopies of typewritten
output, with the mathematical symbols handwritten in. Various Native
American alphabets that often got the same treatment can now look as
good as any English printing.

On the flip side, many of the simplifications needed for printing also
helped reading. The fact that all Latin ligatures, expect for those
which are nearly invisible to the reader (fi, ffi, etc.), have almost
completely disappeared has made reading much easier - no longer do you
have to know as many idiosyncratic ligatures. If the Thai typewriter
thing is true, Thai writing become more phonetic in part because of the
typewriter.

Change happens, but not all change is bad. Technology will destroy some
old ways, but at the same time build up new interesting ones or help
restore old ones.

--
David Starner - starner@...
Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
A field where a thousand corpses lie.
-- Stephen Crane, "War is Kind"