Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: OT More pens (was Re: Phoneme winnowing continues)

From:Tristan <kesuari@...>
Date:Saturday, June 14, 2003, 15:05
On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 09:28, Jake X wrote:
> ['i@n r\oUt]: > >The Quebec rs lack the extra leg, so that they're very similar to a block > >r. This make it very difficult to read for those used to the extra leg, > >particularly in combinations like rn, which can look a lot like m. > I confuse that one as it is in print all the time.
Yeah, but when handwritten, <rn> and <m> *don't* look alike when doing a cursive print-style <r> (and I don't mean one of those fancy ones with the leg on the right-hand side). That is, unless you have a warped-looking <m>. ASCII art, which doesn't do justice, follows, fixed-with font required. (If you have trouble seeing which is which, try getting out a pen and playing join the dots, but play fair: I am using fixed with stuff!) m m mm mm m m mm m mm mm m m m m m m m m m m mm m m mm mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Notice the way the r goes up and comes down again and goes up again? You (at least if you're used to it) see that and you think, 'Oh, that's an <r> followed by an <n>'. On the other hand, an <m> goes up and comes all the way down again. The two are distinct, even in messy handwriting (perhaps moreso). In fact, it would be easier to mistake <rn> for <mi> than for <m> if you're unfamiliar with this <r>, except that there'd be no dot above the <n> but there would be one above the <i>. -- Tristan. PS: The above was with careful handwriting. Something that better approximates my own is: mm mmm m m m m m m m m mm mm m m m m m m mmm m m m m m m m mm mm m m m mm m m m Which is probably even more distinct then before, but they are both clear enough. Maybe not as clear as with the old-fashiond <r>, but that has legibility problems to me: you're going to see what you're used to as clearer. At any rate, I've never fretted over whether something in handwriting is <rn> or <m>, but I have in print.