suzmccarth <suzmccarth at yahoo dot com> wrote:

> I quite like the chiastic arrangement! However, I feel the need to
> comment on dyslexia in Cree script societes. I refer you to this
> text.

After a bit of research, I now know what "chiastic" means. Thanks.

> In any case, it is the phonemically segmental alphabet which really
> creates problems.

*Because* the syllables are rotated and reflected, right? Surely that
can't be a blanket statement that syllabically oriented scripts are
difficult.

> I've had a peek at Ewellic, BTW, and although I can admire it's
> style, I would find other problems with it specifically that it
> does not create distinctive word shapes since there is no
> differential height for the letters. Also I personally have trouble
> with reflections although I am not considered dyslexic.

The letters g and k -- and gh and kh, but those are much less common,
especially in English -- do have slightly different height. The
vertical stroke is of constant height, so in these letters, the oblique
stroke extends slightly above the x-height or below the baseline.
Accents also influence the "shape" of a word. But you're right, nothing
like Latin or Greek.

I concede that the uniform height of Ewellic text makes it harder to
read than some scripts, but still not to the point where I consider it a
"killer" flaw. I see the same characteristic in a host of older
systems, such as Runic and Rovásírás and Buginese and Rejang, and even
in Hebrew and Thaana to some extent. It seems a few people learned to
read those scripts. Most scripts, however, have benefited from usage
and refinement by more than one person, over a period of more than 25
years.

If I ever invent a writing system again, rest assured I will take
variability of letterforms into account.

-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/