Re: cyrillic?

Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
>  --- Wilhelm Ulrich Schlaier skrzypszy:
>
>
>>i would like to know who thinks cyrillic looks better the the roman alphabet?
>
>
> While I have a terrible weakness of Cyrillic (one of my conlangs uses it
> exclusively), I still prefer the Roman alphabet from a purely aesthetical point
> of view. Cyrillic pages can look quite black, and always give me the feeling:
> oh dear, do I have to read all that?
Hmm... I get that too. I wouldn't be suprised if cyrillic books were
significantly heavier than roman ones :). One Russian lesson-book I have
makes extensive use of bold-face Cyrillic. And I wonder why my Russian learning
has stalled the last few months?? (Actually, it's because of interference from
Norsk & Gaeilge :)

OTOH, *italic* Cyrillic can look pretty light and elegant. Though it's a bit
strange to read when you're not used to it on account of the shapes based
on handwriting  (the g and t come to mind). But I'm quite fond of its look.
I swear I've seem somewhere a non-italic Cyrillic font (used in some book,
I believe) based on the italic/cursive shapes. Vey elegant.

s.
----
This post brought to you be the letter 3 and the number 0xF.
Stephen Mulraney... ataltane at ataltane.net... ataltane.net