Peter T. Daniels scripsit:

> What a lame excuse. If a word in another script is dropped into the
> first script, the first script doesn't become "bidirectional"! If it
> did, why wouldn't the same apply to a passage in English with a Hebrew
> word dropped in, as is often found in discussions of biblical text?

Indeed. We should rightly speak not of bidirectional scripts (still less
bidirectional languages) but of bidirectional rendering, and which scripts
(and, a fortiori, languages) require it. It turns out that in practice
texts written in RTL scripts always require bidirectional rendering,
for processing numbers if nothing else, whereas LTR scripts can often
get along with LTR-only rendering, although bidirectional rendering is
of course required for full generality.

On a related topic: I have heard several Persian-speakers say that when
handwriting it is customary to write numbers LTR with the most significant
digit written first, as is done in Hebrew. But I have not been able
to determine if the same is true when writing Arabic, or if the least
significant digit is written first. Does anybody know?

--
John Cowan jcowan@... www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths
led. And through the air. I am he that walks unseen. I am the clue-finder,
the web-cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number. --Bilbo