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

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.