On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Michael Brady wrote:
> > Rodolfo Capeto wrote:
> > > The reason 'O' and 'I' are "weak" is not because they serve as the
> > > basis for other characters, but because their shapes are too simple,
> Hell-l-l-o-o-o. Simple is weak? Uh, make that "too simple"??
> Can't agree with that assertion, Rodolfo.
In fact, neither can I, Michael. In my opinion, simplicity
is strength, in most cases. Actually, I was quoting a post
by Hrant (that's why I put "weak" between quotes), in which
"> The essence of a letter also relies on shape symbolism,
> as well as attributes of *other* characters in the same
> conceptual set. This latter part is why "O" and "I" are
> of very weak essence: they are modules for other characters."
To Hrant's credit, I admit that I misquoted him, for "of weak
essence" is not a synonym of "weak". The point in question,
to me at least, was the recognizability of that shape when
out of context. See that context, in this case, doesn't
necessarily mean the presence of other letterforms (creating
the systemic articulation that is the essence of a script).
One may simply be _expecting_ to find a letter. Signage comes
to mind. In our cultural environment - largely shaped by the
letter - there are many other instances.
> By your logic, would I be correct in surmising that the fraktur cap S, or T
> which is almost indistinguishable from the C, or perhaps the entire font of
> Vivaldi caps, is strong?
Mais non! That's not "my logic", I can assure you.
> There cannot be a shape that is weak because it is too simple. That is like
> saying the shape is weak because it is too fundamental, or too perfected, or too
> unambiguous, or too unmistakable.
[log in to unmask]