Title: A Reply to "The Mutamathil Type Style"/Response from Saad Abulhab
Abstract: Arabie typography has been subject of much interest lately in international conferences and publications.' The last few years have been especially interesting because of new developments in technology, such as Opentype font extension and development of Unicode standard (Hudson, 2000). This has made easier a large number of complexities of dealing with Arabic script, such as large character sets, context sensitivity and application of vocalization marks. Here, an important question presents itself. If technology is no longer a barrier to representation of script, then what form should a type designer give to this work? Should one strictly adhere to calligraphic and ornamental origin or is there a different way to at things? Given that Arabic typography has had a long struggle with technology, today's situation is very interesting. Calls for reform: Past and present In middle of last century, Academy of Arabic Language in Cairo sent out a call for proposals for script reform. Hundreds of replies came in, and all were rejected (Yacoub, 1986). It is quite understandable that no major changes to script were accepted. As Wellisch (1978) explains, once a writing system has been successfully established for a language community, its underlying conventions become essentially indivisible, all-embracing and intolerant of any other convention. This is so much so that it would be to replace an even unsuitable system with a better one geared to character of language. He also explains that change could come in form of addition or removal of a few characters, but that writing system, in general, can be changed to another by force. Such forces could be religious or political. Greek, Latin and Arabic are examples of scripts that benefited from powers of religion in order to spread geographically. The fact that Latin and Arabic scripts are as widespread as Christianity and Islam says a lot about connections between script and religion, and to a large extent, national identities (Wellisch, 1978). Therefore, when attempting to answer question of why no solution was accepted, one should at proposed solutions, while keeping in mind that it is external factors that governed final decision making. As such, it is impossible to discuss large-scale script reform without admitting to influence of politics, religion and culture. Some of solutions were very impractical so it is no shock that they were rejected (Yacoub, 1986). As to others, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. It is very understandable that call for adoption of Latin would be rejected because it meant a complete dissociation with past, especially in domain of calligraphy. That alone would have been enough to discredit those proposals, no matter how earnest they were. The fact that Arabic script is highly tied to Muslim religion makes it quite sacred, a fact that almost makes it untouchable for Arabs. Because Koran was relayed in Arabic, any change to Arabic script means a change to way Koran is written. This close association between script and religion could be reason why no solution was chosen at all. Those that could have made sense (especially Nasri Khattar and Ahmad Zaki Mawlawi) were just too radical. It is highly probable that a less controversial solution was desired, a solution that would not change the look of script, but would keep its essence. One can never know what really went on in minds of committee members. Still, it is probably no coincidence that Linotype would arrive with Simplified Naskh just a few years later, especially that Linotype Matrix acknowledged various current attempts at script reform and fact that solutions looked strange or unattractive (Linotype, 1960). The widespread acceptance of Simplified Naskh, a cheaper and faster way to print Arabic by using two forms per letter rather than usual four, as compared to failure of Academy of Arabic language can only confirm conclusion that Arab linguistic authorities were ready for a new solution and that safe and familiar one eventually won out. …
Publication Year: 2005
Publication Date: 2005-05-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot