28-05-2023, 10:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 28-05-2023, 10:14 PM by Emma May Smith.)
Well, it depends. Are strokes simply convenience, or do they have identity?
That is, if we see that b, p, and d all have long strokes with attached loops. The position of the long stroke varies from ascending to descending, and the loop faces left or right. Somebody who didn't know Roman script might assume some functional affinity. They would be wrong, but it would be a reasonable hypothesis to investigate.
Yet if somebody who didn't know Arabic script saw ط and ظ they might also assume some affinity. They would be right, as the two glyphs derive from the same glyph in the rasm but with different i'jam.
So it's important to know if writing the glyph with two strokes was mandatory as that might indicate a possible decomposition and some underlying relationship between, say [l] and [i].
That is, if we see that b, p, and d all have long strokes with attached loops. The position of the long stroke varies from ascending to descending, and the loop faces left or right. Somebody who didn't know Roman script might assume some functional affinity. They would be wrong, but it would be a reasonable hypothesis to investigate.
Yet if somebody who didn't know Arabic script saw ط and ظ they might also assume some affinity. They would be right, as the two glyphs derive from the same glyph in the rasm but with different i'jam.
So it's important to know if writing the glyph with two strokes was mandatory as that might indicate a possible decomposition and some underlying relationship between, say [l] and [i].