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

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.