> > ... The fact that this style of script was abandoned overnight and
> > other styles of Latin script used is a pretty clear
> indication that
> > they are the same script (unless you subscribe to
> Bormann's theory).
>
>
> And so the fact that in the previous year Latin scripts were
> abandoned
> overnight, by decree of Stalin, for Azerbaijani and many
> other languages
> of the Soviet Union, and replaced by Cyrillic, is a pretty clear
> indication that Latin and Cyrillic are the same script? Or
> the similar
> decree in Turkey in the 1920's indicates that Arabic and
> Latin are the
> same script?
Let's not interpret the fact that people promptly followed decrees of Hitler and Stalin to mean anything other than that they had survival instinct, OK?
This whole Fraktur thing is absurd. Personally, I've never before this discussion thought of it as anything other than a overly stylized Latin font, possibly the product of some ancient I-can-be-more-goth-than-you contest among fontographers. This does not mean that I would not entertain the idea that Fraktur is a separate script. I would, just as I have entertained the idea that Phoenician is the same script as Hebrew. What I dismiss out of hand is that the script-or-font decision for Fraktur is tied to the script-or-font decision for Hebrew.
/|/|ike
