Re: USAGE: Adapting non-Latin scripts

--- Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote:

> The 1849 version of the IPA had a cursive form. In
> the morning, I may well
> scan and post a copy. It's relatively
> straightforward, given an
> understanding of 19th century cursive, which is at
> least easier on the eye
> than anything much older.

That depends entirely on whose hand held the pen.
I've done a lot of scanning through old books of land
deeds, marriage records, will books, etc. looking for
documents relating to ancestors and their comings and
goings.  Believe you me, some of those 19th century
documents are horrific.  Yes, some are quite legible
once you adjust to a few odd conventions like January
being written Jany with the "y" written raised above
the line, and the double "s" that looks like anything
from a double "f" to a double "p" to an "fs" depending
on scribe and position in the word.  Others are
difficult to read due to "ornamentation" like final
t's that encircle the entire word ascenders and
decenders that cross one or more lines of text.
Others are just plain henscratch with every letter
looking like that lovely German handwriting that was
discussed a few months back (aluminum was the example
word that struck terror in the hears of calligraphers
everywhere), only with blots and smudges everywhere as
the scribe dribbled ink from his pen and drug his hand
through the ink all over the page.

All that said, it *is* more easily deciphered than
18th century examples and before.

Adam

9 Debostu averuns judidu ul regu, vaderuns in al via, ed iñi! erad vidandu sis
al steja fi averuns spichudu in il ojindi, gata ad vinid ed pedizud subra jundi
fuid al credura.
10 Vidindu al steja, niregoderuns rexundimindi.

Machu 2:9-10