7 ms·

The Beauty Of Typography: Writing Systems And Calligraphy, Part 2

72 points by danh 16y ago

anoved 16y ago
Together with part 1 (http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/05/18/the-beauty-of-typography-writing-systems-and-calligraphy-of-the-world/ http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/05/18/the-beauty-of-typ...), quite an informative summary of different writing systems. I find different scripts fascinating, and know little about most, so this is a nice entry point to learn more.
ComputerGuru 16y ago
Fascinating article. It really impresses upon one the differences and commonalities between the different scripts. I never realized how much art there was involved in these other languages. I'm bilingual, perfectly fluent in both English and Arabic. From my studies/experiences, I find that English alone from all others that I've come across is a purely functional language. It serves no other purpose than to get the message across and do so effectively. Most other languages are a form of sacred art, with a million rules deciding how the script itself is formed, what's acceptable and what's not, and tend to hang on to certain words, typefaces, accents, and dialects in written form even when the spoken language so greatly diverges from the traditional written script. A primary example here is Arabic: the spoken and written languages differ quite drastically, with the spoken dialect turning into an almost different language as you move across from the Levant areas (Syria/Jordan/Palestine/Lebanon) over into Iraq and then the Gulf countries (Saudi, Kuwait, etc.) and finally into Africa at which point it doesn't even come close to resembling its spoken counterpart that we started off with. Yet, with all that, the written language is 100% identical. Even though there are new words from region to region (not just a matter of intonation/inflection/dialect), the written language is perfectly identical and can be shared understood without difficult. In reality, these people know two different languages entirely. This is, by and large, caused by the memorization of the Quran, which is the holy scripture for Muslims which comprise the majority of the Arab world. The Quran is set in the official "formal Arabic" and Islam doesn't allow for the rewording or modernization of the script since Muslims believe that the actual wording (rather than the meaning) of the Quran was sent down from Allah and is sacred and not be modified (though translations of the Quran exist in almost all languages for reference/reading purposes, the religious actions such as prayers, etc. must be done with the formal arabic script, even in non-arabic-speaking parts of the world such as India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and even the States). Back to the point at hand: In French, Arabic, Hebrew, Japanese, and more there is so much attributed to the beauty of the script, the perfection of the symbols, the fluency of the spoken language, and the scientific rules holding the language together. Languages aren't really living in the same sense as they are in English: new words aren't officially added as often, and the languages themselves serve a much more interesting and less "mundane" task than simply getting ideas across. These languages exist in and of themselves, in a way, they're not only there to serve the speaker: the speaker actually serves the language in many ways.
- nopassrecover 16y ago
  English is very germanic and the germanic languages are very functional as you say. However, it has both celtic and romantic influences (both formal latin through the Roman conquest and later French influence). It is this interesting hybridisation that gives it both functional power (I hear an anecdote of how the French do not have a general purpose word for 'get', instead it is strongly contextual) and (often unused) artistic extensibility.
  - a-priori 16y ago
    English is interesting in that we almost have two independent vocabularies. When speaking informally, you tend to use Germanic words more, and when speaking formally, you tend to use Romance words. I'm writing this formally, which is why I'm using words like "speaking" (which comes from Latin) instead of "talking" (which comes from Middle English). For example, compare "I need to pick up bread from the store when I'm finished." (Romance words, sounds formal) to "I must get bread from the shop when I'm done." (Germanic words, sounds informal). Both mean the same thing, but (ignoring the stiff wording) the first sounds like something you would say to your grandmother, and the second sounds like something you'd say to your pal at the bar.
    - a-priori 16y ago
      I'd like to add that this split can be traced back to the Norman invasion of England in 1066. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England#Language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England#Lang...
    - mahmud 16y ago
      Minor correction. "Speaking" sounded like Germanic to me, sprechen/spreken, and Merriam Webster confirmed it. The latin roots gave us "orate", "dictate", and "eloquence".
      - a-priori 16y ago
        Ah, yes, you are right about that. I don't know where I got the idea that "speak" was Latin-based.

72 points by danh 16y ago

Together with part 1 (http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/05/18/the-beauty-of-typography-writing-systems-and-calligraphy-of-the-world/ http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/05/18/the-beauty-of-typ...), quite an informative summary of different writing systems. I find different scripts fascinating, and know little about most, so this is a nice entry point to learn more.

ComputerGuru 16y ago

Fascinating article. It really impresses upon one the differences and commonalities between the different scripts. I never realized how much art there was involved in these other languages. I'm bilingual, perfectly fluent in both English and Arabic. From my studies/experiences, I find that English alone from all others that I've come across is a purely functional language. It serves no other purpose than to get the message across and do so effectively. Most other languages are a form of sacred art, with a million rules deciding how the script itself is formed, what's acceptable and what's not, and tend to hang on to certain words, typefaces, accents, and dialects in written form even when the spoken language so greatly diverges from the traditional written script. A primary example here is Arabic: the spoken and written languages differ quite drastically, with the spoken dialect turning into an almost different language as you move across from the Levant areas (Syria/Jordan/Palestine/Lebanon) over into Iraq and then the Gulf countries (Saudi, Kuwait, etc.) and finally into Africa at which point it doesn't even come close to resembling its spoken counterpart that we started off with. Yet, with all that, the written language is 100% identical. Even though there are new words from region to region (not just a matter of intonation/inflection/dialect), the written language is perfectly identical and can be shared understood without difficult. In reality, these people know two different languages entirely. This is, by and large, caused by the memorization of the Quran, which is the holy scripture for Muslims which comprise the majority of the Arab world. The Quran is set in the official "formal Arabic" and Islam doesn't allow for the rewording or modernization of the script since Muslims believe that the actual wording (rather than the meaning) of the Quran was sent down from Allah and is sacred and not be modified (though translations of the Quran exist in almost all languages for reference/reading purposes, the religious actions such as prayers, etc. must be done with the formal arabic script, even in non-arabic-speaking parts of the world such as India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and even the States). Back to the point at hand: In French, Arabic, Hebrew, Japanese, and more there is so much attributed to the beauty of the script, the perfection of the symbols, the fluency of the spoken language, and the scientific rules holding the language together. Languages aren't really living in the same sense as they are in English: new words aren't officially added as often, and the languages themselves serve a much more interesting and less "mundane" task than simply getting ideas across. These languages exist in and of themselves, in a way, they're not only there to serve the speaker: the speaker actually serves the language in many ways.

nopassrecover 16y ago
English is very germanic and the germanic languages are very functional as you say. However, it has both celtic and romantic influences (both formal latin through the Roman conquest and later French influence). It is this interesting hybridisation that gives it both functional power (I hear an anecdote of how the French do not have a general purpose word for 'get', instead it is strongly contextual) and (often unused) artistic extensibility.
- a-priori 16y ago
  English is interesting in that we almost have two independent vocabularies. When speaking informally, you tend to use Germanic words more, and when speaking formally, you tend to use Romance words. I'm writing this formally, which is why I'm using words like "speaking" (which comes from Latin) instead of "talking" (which comes from Middle English). For example, compare "I need to pick up bread from the store when I'm finished." (Romance words, sounds formal) to "I must get bread from the shop when I'm done." (Germanic words, sounds informal). Both mean the same thing, but (ignoring the stiff wording) the first sounds like something you would say to your grandmother, and the second sounds like something you'd say to your pal at the bar.
  - a-priori 16y ago
    I'd like to add that this split can be traced back to the Norman invasion of England in 1066. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England#Language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England#Lang...
  - mahmud 16y ago
    Minor correction. "Speaking" sounded like Germanic to me, sprechen/spreken, and Merriam Webster confirmed it. The latin roots gave us "orate", "dictate", and "eloquence".
    - a-priori 16y ago
      Ah, yes, you are right about that. I don't know where I got the idea that "speak" was Latin-based.