Re: Devanagari handwriting?

I didn't check the list for quite some time so I kinda missed the entire
discussion, but anyway I'll chip in FWIW.

Being a native speaker I learnt the Devanagari script in kindergarten, and
hence find it no more cumbersome than the Roman script.  The overbar as
someone pointed out correctly is drawn over one word at a time and is
probably as cumbersome as connecting all the letters in cursive English,
where you have to worry about connecting to o's from above and a' from
below.  Compare your own ease at writing in english vis-a-vis writing out
streams of greek characters(unless you are a Greek ;-) ) which you most
probably do know, if you have ever done a maths/physics course.

  I suppose all languages must seem easy to their native writers(is that a
term?) unless they happen to be extremely calligraphic in which case
naturally a simpler version for daily use is developed, or those languages
are purely liturgical/ceremonial.

Shanth

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:03:23 -0800, B. Garcia <madyaas@...> wrote:

>Actually, Gujarati is very much like what Devanagari would be like if
>it were simplified a bit for ease of handwriting. It lacks
>headstrokes. According to my book, it is a variant of Devanagari.
>
>Also, my book says of Devanagari:
>
>"When people write on lined paper, they "hang" the symbold from the
>line; but in rapid handwriting on unlined paper, the headstroke may be
>eliminated altogether."
>
>So apparently even native writiers of Devanagari find the headstroke
>cumbersome in unlined paper and omit it. Which is why Gujarati writing
>lacks the headstroke.
>
>The headstroke originally was a sort of serif that got interpreted as
>being part of the character.
>
>
>--
>You can turn away from me
>but there's nothing that'll keep me here you know
>And you'll never be the city guy
>Any more than I'll be hosting The Scooby Show
>
>Scooby Show - Belle and Sebastian

Reply