The lettering on the second banner IS beautiful, but I'm more fascinated by the vertical proportion variances you pointed out on the first sample. Why do you think this was done? Was it assumed to be natural proportion based on the proportions found in Farsi script? Ir was it simply decorative?

I turn specifically back to Hrant as one of our resident experts in non-Latin letterforms (or, now, "non-non-Latin" letterforms.... )

Everyone else is encouraged to post, too. ;)

David

22 of the 28 arabic letters have 4 variants:

a. first letter in a word
b. inside the word
c. standing alone.
d. last letter in a word - joining to the letter in front.

when you write - you will connect letters; and the shapes of the letters will change - to adjust to the writing of other letters.

and just fast sample:

sample 1 - arabic has to "h". the left - stressed. the right - normal.

sample 2 - "day" . this word is made out of three letters ya, waw, mim. (but in english you will say : a day. in arabic - short vowles are not written.

---

+++++
hope this sample is fine.

b/sample=== sample=fast.pdf (46.7 k)

<<<<<<<<

> 22 of the 28 arabic letters have 4 variants

And the remaining 6 only have two: they don't join on the left (leading) side no matter where they are in a word. Also: Arabic has no caps.

David's example #1 probably has linguistic validity, but it might confuse some people: those two are actually different letters.

And in example #2, the "lone" (more conventionally called "independent") form of the letter yaa' (the first letter in "yawm"/day) is missing the two lower dots.

> short vowles are not written

Yes, that's an important distinction: long vowels are very much written. Also, short vowels are also written out in texts meant for learning to read Arabic, as well as when they're required to clear up a serious ambiguity (rare).

The feature of Arabic that you can dump part of the script when it's no longer needed* is enviable - although in the West it's usually portrayed as a negative. Another positive feature of Arabic that tends to be distorted into a negative is that it appears "too small" on the body, while in reality it's simple using the Cartesian space differently than Latin, in fact more efficiently in terms of readability (but not legibility). Latin is great for posters. Which makes sense when you consider that its [most relevant] origins are in large public inscriptions.

* Note that Arabic can do this only because it's a consonantal language - you couldn't apply the exact same system to an Indo-European language.

> in ISAREL YOU HAVE TO STUDY ENGLISH, ARABIC, FRENCH

Unless I'm mistaked, you don't really have to study French, and I'd be suprised if Arabic was really required either. In comparison, in Lebanon (where both Arabic and French are official languages), if you're Armenian, you end up with a requirement of 4 languages! That's because when it comes to English, you do practically have to learn it pretty much anywhere! :-/

BTW, I'm pretty sure Chris was talking about my images*, especially since you hadn't been able to show us yours when he made that remark! But it's interesting that Chris seemed too busy feeling offended to realize it was just a misunderstanding. I'm just happy there's no land at stake...

* BTW, Chris, I don't think the "non-Farsi" example is nice at all, it's the "non-Urdu" one that I find stellar.

--

> the guiding principle in this banner seems to be that the enclosed counter of the two letters should be visually balanced.

Interesting observation.

--

> One would assume that if they had studied English, their writing would be better

But there's no definite point where you either know it or not, it's a continuum. Examples:
1) The people who made Yakout (the first Simplified Arabic typeface*) knew the Arabic script very well, but they still managed to deface it.
2) Calligraphers consider people like me (with lousy handwriting) insufficiently educated in the making of letters.
So it's a question of context.

* http://www.microsoft.com/typography/links/news.asp?NID=2930

hhp

> I see only two pictures

Well, I uploaded one picture and linked to a page with another picture.
David [eventually] uploaded one image with two pictures.

> How was I supposed to feel?

I'm not you, so I can't be sure, but I would have felt something like: "Gee, David seems so eager to feel offended that he didn't even realize I couldn't have been talking about his stuff!"

> the first one does have an inherent beauty, don't you think?

Don't you start waxing vernacular on me! :-)

hhp

if you don't know a person - dont write " what you get when someone tries to write in an unfamiliar system" .

If you're trying to equate studying a language with a proficiency or mastery of its written form, I strongly disagree. I've studied Japanese for many years, but I wouldn't claim to be qualified to produce Japanese letterforms. Much more studying would be needed on my part.

Paul

In Arabic (unlike Farsi), the terminal or lone yaa' always has the two dots below. Without them it's a form of alif.

hhp

Oh for ••••'s sake...
Its not that tricky, here's what happened:

DH posts & includes 2 samples

CA posts, says '...Especially the first example...' referring to the first of the 2 example pictures at the top of the post (one inline, the other a link)
Then saying 'I guess that's what you get when someone tries to write in an unfamiliar system. It's almost child like...'

DH thinks CA means his (DH's) examples are childlike or that he (DH) is trying to write in an unfamiliar system etc etc, and posts a defensive (and unecessarily offensive) reply.

Now, DH, realise that CA wasn't referring to you when he said 'childlike' or 'unfamiliar system'.
(This may require you to retract whatever it was you said here: 'ynti mea'drob ma'ah flitox')
CA, you need to realise that DA's response was to what he thought was an insult.

This thread has potential, lets not let it descend into a personal fight based on a misunderstanding.