Hampie wrote:...but I would not tell anyone to adopt that kind of handwriting because it would not be real latin unless they did.
adrianus wrote:Hampie wrote:ireallydonotseethepointofthisargumentsincethetruewayofwiritingduringalongtimewasthisanditsnotveryreadabletoanyone
I would say it's very readable by everyone!
Omnibus facile lectu adusquè est, dico.Hampie wrote:...but I would not tell anyone to adopt that kind of handwriting because it would not be real latin unless they did.
Nor is anyone saying that, Hampie. Possibly you misunderstand.
Nec ullus qui sic urget. Fortassè secús accipis.
Yes. It is used for [j] and for [ʒ] and for [dʒ].vastor wrote:And therein lies the problem, the phonetics of j are completely different across europe, and so the rationale for using it evaporates.
This is incorrect. u is pronounced [uː] and [ʊ] and [y] and [ɨ] and [iː] and [ʌ] in Europe.I strongly disagree with the argument that both j and u have equal merit. u is quite phonetically consistent across europe, so its case for inclusion has a greater weight.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], hlawson38 and 68 guests