the good: dunkin donuts makes good flatbread sandwiches
the bad: I have a book of world scripts and wow I am completely
flabbergasted how bad some of them are. Armenian and Amharic and Georgian
might not have had the same creator, but they stem from the same
character design plan. With the exception of the complicated
conjunct system, I like brahmi-derived scripts. And Hangul too.
But don't get me started on Tamil or Burmese. Sequences of
difficult to differentiate geometrics don't make it easy for users
of a language. Tibetan has similar problems. (all of these scripts look
pretty, but oh ow). Cyrillic is nice. Cree is pretty.
the ability to independently notate vowels is lacking in lots
of places. And Arabic: why do you differentiate phonologically
distinct things by diacritics? I mean, the nastaliq is pretty,
but gosh you make things hard for the typesetters. (with the
notable exception of square kufi calligraphy)
(http://www.sakkal.com/instrctn/Square_Kufi01.html)
general lessons:
the ability to independently notate vowels saves a lot of time and bother
having a good range of both topologically interesting and geometrically
distinct characters seems to do a language good
the ugly: my sleep schedule is forever topsy turvy these days. I have
been miserable and avoidant for weeks, and I'm rather lonely.
oonh
