Michael Everson wrote:

>
> At 17:31 -0400 2005-08-13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > Your Ogham font I would not consider very useful,
> >
> >Why?
>
> Well, the stemline is thicker than the strokes, which I find very
> offputting, not to say ugly and incorrect. Some Ogham fonts have no

As if there were some hallowed tradition of how to represent Ogam with
type.

> stemline at all; in any case the strokes are significant, the
> stemline not. Nevertheless I prefer my Ogham letters to have their
> stemlines drawn on either side of each letter, not the way that

I don't know what that means. Ogam is carved on the edge of a stone.

> you've done them. Your vowel signs in the Ailm series are better than
> many in that they are short; but I prefer notches to small strokes
> for these shapes. That's a question of taste.
>
> In the body of the article, I would say that the suggestion that
> Ogham texts are boustrophedon is simply incorrect. Ogham inscriptions

Did you notice who wrote the article? Do you consider yourself a greater
expert?

> may begin on one side of a stone, go up over the top and down the
> other side, but that is still as single line of text. It is not
> boustrophedon.
>
> > > Your fonts are available where?
> >
> >Ecological Linguistics.
>
> Ah. Good old Lloyd. A friend of mine these many years. :-)

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...