Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 February 3

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 3

Avestan script

Zoroaster, along with some other pages, use Avestan script. My browser (Firefox, latest version) cannot render the text. I've tried downloading fonts from St. Catherine's, the Iran Chamber Society, and Avesta.org, and none of these work. I mentioned this problem on the Zoroaster talk page, but that talk page is silent response-wise. The most relevant WikiProjects, Zorastrianism, Iran, and Central Asia, are all inactive at best. Can someone please refer me to somewhere were I can download a workable Avestan script?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we use Unicode for that kind of stuff. Looking into it, it does appear that the Avestan script is supposed to be in Unicode, because the characters are showing up as blocks with hexadecimal info in them. Ah, here's where to get the Unicode Avestan font. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There must be something wrong - there were some other scripts that also showed up as hexadecimal blocks. Every single one of them displayed correctly after I downloaded the scripts, except for Avestan. Perhaps there's some sort of conflict I'm having on my computer with font scripts?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just downloaded it (from the font made by Google link) and it shows up perfectly fine on my Mac. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 07:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I suppose (I did not download them to check) the fonts you mentioned are outdated and do not support the Unicode block "Avestan", but use the code places of ISO/IEC 8859-1, that is in the places of the letters such as àáâãäå are located the Avestan letters, so a gibberish such as àáâãäå is rendered as a normal Avestan text string. However, what you need is a Unicode font that supports Avestan, the link is already given, the Noto font family is in fact very well built, so do not hesitate to use them. If after installing the fonts they are not seen then tell us what operating system and browser you use. Normally, you do not need to configure the browser, Firefox and Chrome automatically must employ the proper font (if installed). If you need other historical writing systems check if your system has Segoe Historic installed (frankly, I have no idea why Microsoft did not include Avestan already in that font, if they have included dozens of other ancient scripts including Parthian and Pahlavi) or download fonts such as Symbola. Also you may use BabelMap to explore all the Unicode blocks as well as the fonts of your computer.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I ended up downloading the entire Noto font collection last night. I still have this issue only with Avestan. I know that my browser, Firefox, will automatically render those scripts, because on the multilingual support page they all converted, without me even having to re-start my browser. But Avestan will still not render.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's the same for me; I have the fonts installed, and they work e.g. in Notepad, but Avestan is not showing in either Firefox, Chrome or MS Edge (recent clean install of Windows 10). It doesn't bother me much, just reporting in case I can help diagnose the problem. - Lindert (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've right now downloaded and installed Noto, I even did not restart my Firefox and it shows well.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So this clearly is a problem on select machines. But why?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: I found a solution that works for me (in Firefox). I had to turn off hardware acceleration in Firefox' "Advanced" settings, then restart the browser. I guess it's because I have an older graphics card that isn't fully compatible with Windows 10. - Lindert (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Lindert: That's it! I turned off the acceleration, and the script rendered. I even tried turning the acceleration back on, and the script wouldn't render.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was nearly wanted to say we might report to Firefox developers about the problem, but I tried switching off/on the hardware acceleration and no effect, everything works fine as usual. You still did not say what is your OS, what is the version of your Firefox and if Avestan works with other browsers and applications. Anyway in your place I would report to the Firefox team in any case.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My OS is Windows 10, using Firefox 44. I tried Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome - neither of them render Avestan correctly. Chrome I even tried turning off the acceleration, and that didn't work, unlike with Firefox. However, many other fonts also failed to render in Chrome (ironically, considering that I downloaded Google's font project). So it's not just a Firefox thing with Avestan.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Are these the same: "it's quite the contrary/reverse/opposite"?

Are all the alternatives in "it's quite the contrary/reverse/opposite" the same? --Llaanngg (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd regard all of those as meaning the same. I think 'contrary' conveys a slight difference in register compared to the other two, but that's a matter of style, not meaning. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Alex, but you really should give a wider context (like a full paragraph) to get a better response. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If I disagreed with Medeis and thought less context would be better, I could reply by saying "It's quite the contrary". The other two options don't work (in my opinion). So I must agree with Medeis.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The other two options do work. Why would they not? "It's quite the reverse of what Medeis said." "It's quite the opposite of what Medeis said." Both work fine for me. The "reverse" and the "opposite" mean "less context" as opposed to "more context". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with Medeis? Some mistake surely :-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You have anticipated me quite keenly, Alansplodge. Next time I break my toe I shall forego the narcotics. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A "narrower context" is neither the reverse nor the opposite of a "wider context".--Shantavira|^{feed me}

Well, this is all semantics, then. "More context" versus "less context" is reverse and is opposite. Perhaps not so with "narrower" versus "wider". But definitely so with "more" versus "less". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think the square of opposition is the only truly relevant matter here. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)