|
|
Dr. Jamshid Ibrahim wrote:
Harlan Messinger schrieb:
The issue seems to be whether the viability of a script depends on the
patterns, not whether the patterns result from having a particular
script as seems to be your interpretation.
However, when we know a pattern we can predict the vowels
easily, dispense with them and use shorthand script
No Harlan I said the viability of Arabic script depends on language
patterns.
You said, "To me all languages depend on patterns and script has nothing
to do with it," the implication about your line of reasoning being that
(a) you understood the claim to be that Arabic has the patterns it has
because, at least in part, of the script that's used, and (b) you're
contradicting that claim based on the fact that all languages have
patterns regardless of the script used for them, if any at all. If (a)
is not what you meant, then you don't seem to have meant what you said
in your remark.
Still all languages use patterns, don't they? It is of course
difficult ot read English without the vowels partly because there are
five of them and not only three as in Arabic.
True.
|
|