2-in-1 On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:27:48 -0700, B. Garcia <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Yes, and they provide a problem for dyslexics too (who have to be >taught how to get past their dyslexia.) However there are few scripts >with characters that have the same form for the base "point of >articulation" as yours does. The latin script doesn't have the same >form for p, b, m, w, nor for t, d, n, l, r. That's what i'm talking >about. Just take a look at the handwriting I just posted, I have made a good amount of improvements. >> No, it should be useable. > >Of course it should. Which is why I'd make your script far less >baroque, simplify it down, and make the various letters as different >in form from each other as you can (this doesn't mean destroy shape >unity. You don't want a mix of runic looking characters with arabic >looking ones with hiragana looking characters) Yes, something like that would be really awkward... On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 18:10:38 +0200, Henrik Theiling <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Furthermore, the Langenscheid Englisch-Deutsch-Deutsch-Englisch >dictionary I just checked, which indeed includes the pronunciation for >that word, shows ['Erg@r] as we both suggested. The one I have here (which I mentioned) is a Langenscheidt-Giunti Italian-German/German-Italian dictionary. The impressum says it's from 1996.