Re: Sci Am Re: scripts page

Phillip Driscoll wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
>
> > Nicholas Bodley wrote:
> >
> > > (Naskh is another; Sci. Am. gave clear examples of about five different
> > > principal styles of Arabic script. Apparently, only well-educated Arabic
> > > speakers/writers know of these names of the various styles. Courteous
> > > inquiries of middle-class Arabic speakers have "drawn blanks".)
> >
> > No one in the modern world knows exactly what all six of the classical
> > calligraphic labels mean (see WWS and references given there), but Naskh
> > and Nasta'liq and Kufic should all be familiar.
>
> Arabic-speaking immigrants whom I've met as they worked in a
> convenience store, all seemed to know what Nasta'liq and Kufic
> are. Interestingly, most of them have told me that they find Kufic
> difficult to read.

Who wouldn't? It usually doesn't have consonant dots or vowel points.

> On the other hand, how many English-speakers know what "sans
> serif" means? (especially before Windows?)

OTOH, calligraphy is far more central to Islamic culture than typography
is to Western. No, what I'm saying is that literally the referents of
some of the traditional six style labels are completely unknown.

> --Ph. D.

Is that, as creationists like to say, an "earned" Ph.D.?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...