The Beauty Of Typography: Writing Systems And Calligraphy, Part 2(smashingmagazine.com)
smashingmagazine.com
The Beauty Of Typography: Writing Systems And Calligraphy, Part 2
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/06/22/the-beauty-of-typography-writing-systems-and-calligraphy-part-2/
2 comments
Together with part 1 (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.
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.
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.
Nitpick. The Quran is not "set in official formal Arabic". No. The language of the Quran was standardized to become Formal Arabic, by the Umawid and Abassid empires. Prophet Muhamad (PBUH) himself acknowledged that the Quran could be read in "7 tongues", or regional pronunciations.
I will translate for non-Arabic speakers, but here is the original source:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamO...
The caliph Umar once heard a man read a sura in his prayer and he noticed clear mispronunciation of the verses in the man's recitation. When the man finished his prayer, Umar pulled him aside and asked him who taught him the Sura. "The Prophet" said the man, "Liar!" said Umar, "By God, I have heard this Sura from the prophet and didn't recite it in your manner", and he took the man to the prophet. The man was ordered to read the sura again, and he did so, still with his peculiar pronunciation. The prophet acknowledge the correctness of the meaning of the Sura, then added, "the Quran was sent to you in 7 letters, so read it in the manner easiest for you".
:-)
I will translate for non-Arabic speakers, but here is the original source:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamO...
The caliph Umar once heard a man read a sura in his prayer and he noticed clear mispronunciation of the verses in the man's recitation. When the man finished his prayer, Umar pulled him aside and asked him who taught him the Sura. "The Prophet" said the man, "Liar!" said Umar, "By God, I have heard this Sura from the prophet and didn't recite it in your manner", and he took the man to the prophet. The man was ordered to read the sura again, and he did so, still with his peculiar pronunciation. The prophet acknowledge the correctness of the meaning of the Sura, then added, "the Quran was sent to you in 7 letters, so read it in the manner easiest for you".
:-)
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.
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.
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.
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#Lang...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England#Lang...
It seems to me that formal Arabic (in its classical and modern varieties) plays the same role in the Arab world that Latin used to play in Europe.
No. Formal Arabic plays the same role as Formal English. It's the language of business, government, media, education and the learned classes.
Every time you mind your grammar and articulate something for polite company, more than you would have for buddies, you're speaking the English equivalent of "Formal Arabic".
I don't know where people get this meme about Arabic being a dead prestige language.
Every time you mind your grammar and articulate something for polite company, more than you would have for buddies, you're speaking the English equivalent of "Formal Arabic".
I don't know where people get this meme about Arabic being a dead prestige language.
Once upon a time, in Europe, all the important books (scientific and literary) were written in Latin, all educated and upper-class people knew Latin, learning grammar meant learning Latin grammar, and coversations on serious topics were held in Latin. (And if you really wanted to show off, you learned Latin and Greek.) Latin is a dead prestige language now (except perhaps among Catholic priests), but it wasn’t then.
My point (which may still be incorrect) is that formal Arabic now plays a social role similar to the role that Latin played then. Sorry if I did not communicate that clearly.
My point (which may still be incorrect) is that formal Arabic now plays a social role similar to the role that Latin played then. Sorry if I did not communicate that clearly.
And you would absolutely be correct, after clarification. Only difference is that when Latin was supreme, literacy was scarce and only available to the wealthy. Today, schooling is the only thing available to the poor. The average Arab is underemployed and over educated. While among the wealthy, Western languages and just complete illiteracy is popular (see any "heir" give a speech and you will see a man at war with grammar.)