[LMB] What’s needed
baur at chello.at
Sat Feb 1 08:59:01 GMT 2020
Am 01.02.2020 um 09:46 schrieb Eric Oppen:
> I think you mean that serious writing in the Ottoman Empire was done in
> Arabic script, not in the Arabic language.
yes, no, sort off ..
based on what one of my turkish co-workers once said - lots of the
serious, intellectual thinking and writing did happen not only in arabic
script, but also arabic language - this because the (early) universities
were islam / religion dominated (just like universities in europe), and
the only proper language to discuss religion in was arabic (becasue the
koran may not be translated)
> Prior to Ataturk's reforms,
> Turkish was written in the Arabic script, for which it was spectacularly
> ill-suited---Arabic is a consonant-heavy language with few vowels, while
> Turkish has lots and lots of vowel sounds. Between the change over to the
> Latin alphabet (or an adaptation of it) and the elimination of a lot of
> Arabic and Persian loan words in favor of Turkish-derived substitutes,
> Ottoman Turkish is a very different language from modern Turkish.
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 2:24 AM Baur <baur at chello.at> wrote:
>> Am 31.01.2020 um 21:10 schrieb Luke Bretscher:
>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:31 AM Baur <baur at chello.at> wrote:
>>>> might that have something to do with the fact that all serious writing
>>>> in the ottoman empire was done in arabic, which puts a strong emphasis
>>>> on calligraphy? i once heard that printing arabic (or other semitic
>>>> languages is a pita)
>>> In Arabic, at the risk of an oversimplification, the letters all run
>>> together. The Latin alphabet lends itself much better to movable type,
>>> since the letters are separate on the page. Except in cursive, of
>>> course, which would be just as hard to print successfully as Arabic.
>>> On the other hand, I imagine Hebrew (though another Semitic language)
>>> is not hard to print, since the letters are separate like Latin ones.
>> ahh .. thanks - this clears up some things in the remark i was referring
>> to ..
>>> This of course makes one wonder why that difference exists. A cursive
>>> script like Arabic, or Latin-letters cursive, or Tengwar cursive,
>>> would naturally come from the use of a handheld pen to write, where
>>> smoothly linked forms are easiest. Roman capitals are blocky and
>>> separate because that's what's easy to carve on a stone monument. But
>>> why does (e.g.) an uncial script also have separate letterforms? Why
>>> does the Hebrew alphabet have them? And so on.
>> might this be a question of pen quality?
>> early pens / reeds only holding enough ink for a single letter (or part
>> thereof) giving raise to single letter scripts with many "broken" (start
>> / stop) lines
>> better quality pens giving thinner lines and holding enough ink for
>> several letters, giving raise to cursive scripts allowing to write
>> several letters in one flowing motion before having to dip the pen into
>> the ink again?
>> just a hypothesis
>>> Suddenly realizing he wants to take a course on paleography,
>>> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to baur at chello.at
>>> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
>> Email from my mobile connection.
>> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to ravenclaweric at gmail.com
>> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to baur at chello.at
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
Email from my mobile connection.
More information about the Lois-Bujold