info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: typography & readability
30 views
Skip to first unread message
Marvin J. Mooney
May 2, 2017, 10:42:03 PM5/2/17
to
Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 1/4/17 10:57 pm, Tak To wrote:
>> It is trivial (YMMV), not unlike getting used to alternative spellings
>> such as color vs colour, or draft vs draught.
>
> Are they all trivial? And are we supposed to remember outdated words
> like "mileage" forever?
YKMV!!1!
> On 1/4/17 10:57 pm, Tak To wrote:
>> It is trivial (YMMV), not unlike getting used to alternative spellings
>> such as color vs colour, or draft vs draught.
>
> Are they all trivial? And are we supposed to remember outdated words
> like "mileage" forever?
YKMV!!1!
Michael Press
May 3, 2017, 2:48:15 AM5/3/17
to
In article <slrnodtl0q.2...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-03-24, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
> > On 3/16/2017 8:55 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:00:57 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> I gather that there is a move among Chinese writers to replace
> >>> elaborate characters by simplified forms. That seems to me to be a
> >>> move in the sans-serif direction.
> >>
> >> If the People's Republic of China following the directive of Mao
> >> Zedong can be considered "Chinese writers," then perhaps so. It has,
> >> however, nothing to do with monoline vs. brushstroke-like characters;
> >> both Traditional and Simplified characters can be printed either way.
> >>
> >> Traditional characters are used in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore.
> >
> > Singapore switched to using simplified characters quite a while ago.
> > They started using them in schools in the 80's. As of 1993,
> > Singaporean passports and identify cards are in simplified characters.
> >
> >> However, a few years ago every one of the Chinese-English
> >> dictionaries, of various sizes from several publishers, on the shelf
> >> at Barnes & Noble used Simplified. Those studying Chinese for
> >> business are far more likely to need to communicate with the PRC than
> >> with any of the other Chinese- writing places.
> >
> > The PRC still occasionally publishes books in traditional characters
> > -- most of them on Classical literature. I have just purchased a 2-
> > book set in that format.
>
> Just being curious - how easy is it for someone who learned with
> 'simplified' at school, to read and understand texts written in
> traditional characters? I imagine the difference is less than that
> between (for example) 'Ottoman' and 'Latin' letters used to write
> Turkish.
>
> English readers seem to baulk even at fairly mild spelling reform, let
^^^^^
Is this an example of your mild spelling reform?
> alone moving to a more phonetic writing system. Neither the Shavian
> alphabet nor ITA seem to have made any progress since the 1960s.
--
Michael Press
Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2017-03-24, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
> > On 3/16/2017 8:55 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:00:57 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> I gather that there is a move among Chinese writers to replace
> >>> elaborate characters by simplified forms. That seems to me to be a
> >>> move in the sans-serif direction.
> >>
> >> If the People's Republic of China following the directive of Mao
> >> Zedong can be considered "Chinese writers," then perhaps so. It has,
> >> however, nothing to do with monoline vs. brushstroke-like characters;
> >> both Traditional and Simplified characters can be printed either way.
> >>
> >> Traditional characters are used in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore.
> >
> > Singapore switched to using simplified characters quite a while ago.
> > They started using them in schools in the 80's. As of 1993,
> > Singaporean passports and identify cards are in simplified characters.
> >
> >> However, a few years ago every one of the Chinese-English
> >> dictionaries, of various sizes from several publishers, on the shelf
> >> at Barnes & Noble used Simplified. Those studying Chinese for
> >> business are far more likely to need to communicate with the PRC than
> >> with any of the other Chinese- writing places.
> >
> > The PRC still occasionally publishes books in traditional characters
> > -- most of them on Classical literature. I have just purchased a 2-
> > book set in that format.
>
> Just being curious - how easy is it for someone who learned with
> 'simplified' at school, to read and understand texts written in
> traditional characters? I imagine the difference is less than that
> between (for example) 'Ottoman' and 'Latin' letters used to write
> Turkish.
>
> English readers seem to baulk even at fairly mild spelling reform, let
^^^^^
Is this an example of your mild spelling reform?
> alone moving to a more phonetic writing system. Neither the Shavian
> alphabet nor ITA seem to have made any progress since the 1960s.
--
Michael Press
James Wilkinson Sword
May 3, 2017, 8:40:04 AM5/3/17
to
>> alone moving to a more phonetic writing system. Neither the Shavian
>> alphabet nor ITA seem to have made any progress since the 1960s.
--
Some dued
May 3, 2017, 10:25:00 AM5/3/17
to
Programmers and CLI users often like fixed width fonts to make things line up across rows.
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
May 3, 2017, 11:41:31 AM5/3/17
to
On Tue, 02 May 2017 23:48:12 -0700, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
That is an unreformed spelling.
OED:
2.d. To avoid (a duty or responsibility).
1631 J. Preston Treat. Effectual Faith 146 Thou must not balke
the way of Religion, because of the troubles thou meetest.
a1708 W. Beveridge Private Thoughts Christian Life (1712) 194
Not that we should run our selves into danger, but that we should
baulk no Duty to avoid it.
1785 W. Cowper Tirocinium in Task 257 Such an age as ours baulks
no expence.
>> alone moving to a more phonetic writing system. Neither the Shavian
>> alphabet nor ITA seem to have made any progress since the 1960s.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
wrote:
OED:
2.d. To avoid (a duty or responsibility).
1631 J. Preston Treat. Effectual Faith 146 Thou must not balke
the way of Religion, because of the troubles thou meetest.
a1708 W. Beveridge Private Thoughts Christian Life (1712) 194
Not that we should run our selves into danger, but that we should
baulk no Duty to avoid it.
1785 W. Cowper Tirocinium in Task 257 Such an age as ours baulks
no expence.
>> alone moving to a more phonetic writing system. Neither the Shavian
>> alphabet nor ITA seem to have made any progress since the 1960s.
--
(in alt.usage.english)
Michael Press
May 3, 2017, 1:22:06 PM5/3/17
to
Michael Press
May 3, 2017, 1:32:15 PM5/3/17
to
In article <op.yznxg...@red.lan>,
No. Nobody uses a fixed width font anymore.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
01234567891123456789212345678931234567894123456789512345678961234567897123456789
> >> alone moving to a more phonetic writing system. Neither the Shavian
> >> alphabet nor ITA seem to have made any progress since the 1960s.
--
Michael Press
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
01234567891123456789212345678931234567894123456789512345678961234567897123456789
> >> alone moving to a more phonetic writing system. Neither the Shavian
> >> alphabet nor ITA seem to have made any progress since the 1960s.
--
Robert Bannister
May 5, 2017, 9:13:34 PM5/5/17
to
orthography.
>
>> alone moving to a more phonetic writing system. Neither the Shavian
>> alphabet nor ITA seem to have made any progress since the 1960s.
>
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
>> alone moving to a more phonetic writing system. Neither the Shavian
>> alphabet nor ITA seem to have made any progress since the 1960s.
>
--
Western Australia since 1972
0 new messages