There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Conscripts and computers
From: Christian Thalmann
1b. Re: Conscripts and computers
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
1c. Re: Conscripts and computers
From: George Marques de Jesus
2a. Re: Grammatical complexity
From: Jim Henry
2b. Re: Grammatical complexity
From: Adam Walker
2c. Re: Grammatical complexity
From: George Corley
2d. Re: Grammatical complexity
From: Adam Walker
3a. Re: Too simple to be derived?
From: And Rosta
3b. Re: Too simple to be derived?
From: C. Brickner
4a. Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
From: C. Brickner
4b. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
From: Adam Walker
4c. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
From: C. Brickner
4d. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
4e. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
From: Adam Walker
4f. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Conscripts and computers
Posted by: "Christian Thalmann" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 3:32 am ((PDT))
This kind of thing should be quite feasible with contextual alternates —
especially if your syllables all have the same overall dimensions. In my
experience, though, FontForge is painfully clunky for such things. Glyphs will
save you hours upon hours of frustration and is well worth the money.
Vaede
On Tue, 21 May 2013 01:05:47 -0300, George Marques de Jesus
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Well, it's not different of the way I thought it should work, I'm not so
>bad in guessing, at least.
>
>But now I don't know *how* to create such slots and permutations with the
>font, so the word processor would understand and prettify everything. I
>will dive into FontForge and see what I can do.
>
>George Marques
>http://georgemarques.com.br
>
>
>2013/5/21 Casey Borders <[email protected]>
>
>> My thought is that you wouldn't need every combination you just need each
>> letter in each permutation. So you need to look at how you're forming your
>> blocks and find out how many different slots you have and make a version of
>> each letter that fits into each slot. Then, when you type, it would be
>> something like :
>>
>> Upper Left B
>> Upper Right R
>> Middle A
>> Lower D
>>
>> Then the space character could move you on to the next block. Depending on
>> the complexity of your combination system it could still be quite a few
>> permutations but you should be able to get away with less than 35K.
>> On May 20, 2013 11:30 PM, "George Marques de Jesus" <
>> [email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm finally trying to develop a conscript. I liked the way Hangul works,
>> so
>> > I thought to do something with the same idea: an alphabet that groups
>> > letters into syllables. I sketched some letters in the paper, but then I
>> > realized I had no idea how to use them in the computer. I know plenty
>> about
>> > computers, as a hobbyist programmer, though only almost nothing about
>> > fonts.
>> >
>> > I searched to see how Hangul fonts are designed, because I think nobody
>> > goes creating 11k glyphs for a font (well, maybe someone does, but
>> besides
>> > the time it'd take, that'd use some good extra space in the hard drive
>> and
>> > RAM). So I wanted to know how they combine to look pretty as they do,
>> but I
>> > found nothing about it (TBH I do found something here:
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otfntdev/hangulot/shaping.htm only
>> it
>> > didn't help me much)
>> >
>> > If my math is good, I have over 35k possibilities for syllables (35490 to
>> > be exact), so I'm not going to make glyph for everything (I'll probably
>> > even *use* all combinations).
>> >
>> > And my questions are: are there any resources about how Hangul font are
>> > designed? Are there any specific software that can build something
>> similar
>> > to it (specially a free one)? Is this even possible to do (considering
>> that
>> > I have over 3 times more possibilities than Hangul and somewhat different
>> > way of combining)? Should I give up and stick with pencil and paper?
>> >
>> > George Marques
>> > http://georgemarques.com.br
>> >
>>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Conscripts and computers
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 7:04 am ((PDT))
On 22 May 2013 12:32, Christian Thalmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> This kind of thing should be quite feasible with contextual alternates —
> especially if your syllables all have the same overall dimensions. In my
> experience, though, FontForge is painfully clunky for such things. Glyphs
> will save you hours upon hours of frustration and is well worth the money.
>
That may well be, but not everyone owns a Mac nor wishes to own one.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Conscripts and computers
Posted by: "George Marques de Jesus" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 11:08 am ((PDT))
I don't have a Mac and don't have money to spend with my conlanging
eccentricities, so Glyphs is out of the roster (as also is Fontographer).
But it looks like the trio Inkscape + FontForge + Graphite will do fine and
it'll not be too much work.
And thanks for the help, everyone.
George Marques
http://georgemarques.com.br
2013/5/22 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]>
> On 22 May 2013 12:32, Christian Thalmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This kind of thing should be quite feasible with contextual alternates �
> > especially if your syllables all have the same overall dimensions. In my
> > experience, though, FontForge is painfully clunky for such things. Glyphs
> > will save you hours upon hours of frustration and is well worth the
> money.
> >
>
> That may well be, but not everyone owns a Mac nor wishes to own one.
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Grammatical complexity
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 11:21 am ((PDT))
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is anyone here the teensiest bit familiar with the Dumi language and
> its ornative case? I'm trying to figure out why it should be
> considered a noun case and not a strategy for turning nouns into
> adjectives. Of course I accept genative as a case and it does pretty
> much the same sort of thing - takes a noun and turns it into something
> that functions more like an adjective.
I'm not sure how it works in Dumi. For that matter, why not analyze
the dative, or allative, or instrumental not as cases but as ways of
deriving an adverb from a noun? Presumably because the word still
shares important properties, syntactic and/or morphological, with
nouns in the core cases like nominative or absolutive.
Hixkaryana has circumfixes and suffixes that turn a noun X into an
adverb meaning "having an X". There are four of them, one meaning
simply "having an X", one "having a good X", another "having a big X",
and finally (if I understand correctly) "having an X in a bad state".
(Derbyshire calls the class of modifiers in Hixkaryana "adverbs"
rather than "adjectives" for several reaons, for instance, they occur
only in predicate position, not as attributes of nouns within a noun
phrase.)
gjâ-zym-byn has a couple of such a suffixes, one meaning "having X",
another "having a lot of X". In gzb this is definitely an adjective
derivation and not a case.
>
> Adam
>
> On 5/21/13, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Wm Annis <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > How common is it for a language to have both a powerful verbal
>>> > morphology
>>> > AND robust case marking?
>>>
>>> One way to think about this question is the distinction between
>>> head-marking (lots of argument marking on the verb) and dependent-
>>> marking (lots of argument stuff on the noun phrase) languages. What
>>> you're describing is close to "double-marking." It's not particularly
>>> common, but it's not unheard of, either:
>>>
>>> http://wals.info/chapter/25
>>>
>>> Note especially the last category in the WALS map, "inconsistent
>>> marking." Purity of marking seems the unusual situation, no matter
>>> which one it is.
>>>
>>> --
>>> wm
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, that doesn't fully solve my internal quandary, but it does provide
>> useful info for further ponderment. Thanks.
>>
>> Adam
>>
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Grammatical complexity
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 11:49 am ((PDT))
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Is anyone here the teensiest bit familiar with the Dumi language and
> > its ornative case? I'm trying to figure out why it should be
> > considered a noun case and not a strategy for turning nouns into
> > adjectives. Of course I accept genative as a case and it does pretty
> > much the same sort of thing - takes a noun and turns it into something
> > that functions more like an adjective.
>
> I'm not sure how it works in Dumi. For that matter, why not analyze
> the dative, or allative, or instrumental not as cases but as ways of
> deriving an adverb from a noun? Presumably because the word still
> shares important properties, syntactic and/or morphological, with
> nouns in the core cases like nominative or absolutive.
>
> Hixkaryana has circumfixes and suffixes that turn a noun X into an
> adverb meaning "having an X". There are four of them, one meaning
> simply "having an X", one "having a good X", another "having a big X",
> and finally (if I understand correctly) "having an X in a bad state".
> (Derbyshire calls the class of modifiers in Hixkaryana "adverbs"
> rather than "adjectives" for several reaons, for instance, they occur
> only in predicate position, not as attributes of nouns within a noun
> phrase.)
>
> gjâ-zym-byn has a couple of such a suffixes, one meaning "having X",
> another "having a lot of X". In gzb this is definitely an adjective
> derivation and not a case.
>
>
All of which make(s) sense to me. I guess what I'm concerned about is
setting this up in such a way that someone of us comes along AFTER I've
done all this work of designing and tweaking and all and then says "Why are
you calling THAT a case? All you're doing is deriving an adjective?" I'm
trying to get a better theoretical grasp on why Dative is a noun case and
not an adverb, why Genitive is likewise a noun case and not an adjective,
and thus how I would defend ornative as a case as well. What Hixkaranya is
interesting, but I'm pretty sure that Gravgaln won't behave that way
syntactically, even though the semantics may overlap somewhat. That example
helps all these vague notions swirling in my head come a bit clearer.
Adam
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Grammatical complexity
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 12:26 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> All of which make(s) sense to me. I guess what I'm concerned about is
> setting this up in such a way that someone of us comes along AFTER I've
> done all this work of designing and tweaking and all and then says "Why are
> you calling THAT a case? All you're doing is deriving an adjective?" I'm
> trying to get a better theoretical grasp on why Dative is a noun case and
> not an adverb, why Genitive is likewise a noun case and not an adjective,
> and thus how I would defend ornative as a case as well. What Hixkaranya is
> interesting, but I'm pretty sure that Gravgaln won't behave that way
> syntactically, even though the semantics may overlap somewhat. That example
> helps all these vague notions swirling in my head come a bit clearer.
>
I can easily help you with the dative issue. The dative usually marks the
indirect object, or semantic role GOAL. This is a position that can only
be filled by a noun. It's not adverby in any way. (There will, of course,
be variation in the use of the dative, but at it's core it's usually
marking the goal/recipient.) The genitive gets a little more complicated,
but still basically boils down to it behaving differently from an adjective
syntactically.
I think the best way for us to help you would be for you to show us some
examples of how this case will actually be *used*. Then we can help you
analyze it. Generally, I advocate generating examples as much as possible,
then analyzing them as if you were an outside linguist to get at what your
grammar actually does.
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Grammatical complexity
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 12:38 pm ((PDT))
Ah but I don't *have* any examples yet. I'm probably going about this
backwards- a not-unusual occurance for me, but I'm trying to
understand this first so that when I do build the structures, they do
what I want them to.
And while I agree the Dative is very noun-y when it marks a DO, I feel
it is rather adverb-y when it marks a goal. Maybe I'm just making this
more difficult than need be and the world inside my head is failing to
match reality.
Adam
On 5/22/13, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> All of which make(s) sense to me. I guess what I'm concerned about is
>> setting this up in such a way that someone of us comes along AFTER I've
>> done all this work of designing and tweaking and all and then says "Why
>> are
>> you calling THAT a case? All you're doing is deriving an adjective?"
>> I'm
>> trying to get a better theoretical grasp on why Dative is a noun case and
>> not an adverb, why Genitive is likewise a noun case and not an adjective,
>> and thus how I would defend ornative as a case as well. What Hixkaranya
>> is
>> interesting, but I'm pretty sure that Gravgaln won't behave that way
>> syntactically, even though the semantics may overlap somewhat. That
>> example
>> helps all these vague notions swirling in my head come a bit clearer.
>>
>
> I can easily help you with the dative issue. The dative usually marks the
> indirect object, or semantic role GOAL. This is a position that can only
> be filled by a noun. It's not adverby in any way. (There will, of course,
> be variation in the use of the dative, but at it's core it's usually
> marking the goal/recipient.) The genitive gets a little more complicated,
> but still basically boils down to it behaving differently from an adjective
> syntactically.
>
> I think the best way for us to help you would be for you to show us some
> examples of how this case will actually be *used*. Then we can help you
> analyze it. Generally, I advocate generating examples as much as possible,
> then analyzing them as if you were an outside linguist to get at what your
> grammar actually does.
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Too simple to be derived?
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 11:34 am ((PDT))
I'll contribute an AFMCL to this thread:
Livagian has words like "ginormous" and "titchy", words with some kind of
element of expressiveness, but not words like "large", "fast", "heavy" (as in
"It is heavy" rather than as in "How heavy is it") or "small","slow", "light";
in their stead it has words like "weigh", as in "She weighs ten stone", where,
depending on the nature of the scale, the number argument can be a positive
amount (e.g. "a small positive amount") or a negative amount (e.g. "a middling
negative amount") or a fraction between "none" and "all"; there are also
numbers for changes of degree e.g. from one part of the scale to another, or
increase or decrease within a part of the scale. E.g. "X decelerates" =
"decreasing-positive-amount is speed of X".
--And.
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Too simple to be derived?
Posted by: "C. Brickner" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 11:40 am ((PDT))
gjâ-zym-byn has three suffixes corresponding roughly to Esperanto
"mal-".
=========================
In Senjecas there are four prefixes for negating, in some way, a word.
1. dus- translates the English “dis-“ or “mis-“, e.g., pőrvis: honest;
duspőṙvis: dishonest; twe̋e̋a: attend, take care of; dustwe̋e̋a: neglect,
disregard.
2. mhi- (mhy- before a vowel) is the prefix for the conversive, e.g., ȝűga:
harness; mhiȝűga: unharness; oűta: dress; mhyoűta: undress.
3. n- is the prefix for negating a substantive, a-, un-, in-, e.g., a̋çis:
movable, mobile; na̋çis: immovable, immobile; ma̋a̋ĸis: possible; nma̋a̋ĸis:
impossible.
4. v- (f- before a voiceless consonant; vį- before another v) is prefixed to
nouns or adjectives to indicate “without”, “not having”, e.g., ı̋lĸas: hope;
vı̋lĸas: despair; va̋ṙðis: bearded; vįva̋ṙðis: beardless, clean-shaven; te̋nas:
time; fte̋nis: timeless, ageless.
I’m still working out the nuances of these prefixes.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
Posted by: "C. Brickner" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 12:52 pm ((PDT))
I don’t think I’ll ever be satisfied with the orthography for Senejcas! I’m
trying to work with seven criteria:
1. It can be written in cursive.
2. No diacritics.
3. No digraphs.
4. Latin letters.
5. Composed characters for ease in replacing.
6. Some semblance of correspondence between the grapheme and some phoneme
somewhere.
7. My own esthetic sense.
Obviously, there has to be some give and take. My current problem is how to
represent what are known in Senjecas as “weak vowels”: I/ɪ; ə/@; and ʊ/U.
My first plan was to use ï, ë, and ü. As I am using single and double acute
accents to indicate tone, the diareses added more clutter above the letters,
not to mention the occasional turned comma above to indicate palatalization and
caron to indicate labialization.
Then I went to symbols without diacritics: ı, ə, and y. I really like <ı>,
but I don’t care for <y> for that sound.
Currently I am using the three vowels with an ogonek: į, ę ,ų. Not bad, but
there are diacritics. At least they’re below the letters.
The other day I was reading her translation of the Babel story and I noticed
that Ms. Sotomayor had used several IPA symbols in her orthography. It didn’t
look bad at all! If a conlanger of her caliber could do it, I figured I could
use non-Latin letters also.
Therefore, I can return to the use of the <ı>.
I have thought of two possibilities for ʊ/U. I like the idea of the turned m
<ɯ>. In cursive, the <i> would have one point, the <u> two points, and the
<ɯ> three points. Another possibility is v with hook <ʋ>. However, how is
it written in cursive? Maybe with some mark above it as is done in cursive
Fraktur to distinguish <u> from <n>.
I am having the most difficulty with the schwa. Here are some possibilities
using the adverb ‘sanółtęvi’, tonight.
1. sanółtęvi
2. sanółt ë vi
3. sanółt ə vi
4. sanółt ɘ vi
5. sanółt ε vi
6. sanółt ɜ vi
7. sanółt э vi
8. sanółt є vi
#s 1 and 2 are eliminated because of the diacritics. #3 is a possibility; it
is used in some natlangs . #4 is not pleasing esthetically. I see #5 as
being easy to write in cursive, #6 not so much. I am leaning toward #8.
It’s not unattractive and it can be written in cursive like #5. Influenced by
the numeral 3, I suppose, I see #7 as backward.
Opinions, suggestions, comments, etc., welcomed.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:29 pm ((PDT))
I think I like 2, 5 and 8 best. Of course you are the one who has to live
with the choice you make (until you change your mind!!), but any of them
could work. I don't think any of them would be particularly difficult in
cursive. Cyrilic cursive gets by with a whole bunch of letters that face
the "wrong" way.
Adam
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, C. Brickner <[email protected]>wrote:
> I don’t think I’ll ever be satisfied with the orthography for Senejcas!
> I’m trying to work with seven criteria:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. It can be written in cursive.
>
>
>
> 2. No diacritics.
>
>
>
> 3. No digraphs.
>
>
>
> 4. Latin letters.
>
>
>
> 5. Composed characters for ease in replacing.
>
>
>
> 6. Some semblance of correspondence between the grapheme and some phoneme
> somewhere.
>
>
>
> 7. My own esthetic sense.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Obviously, there has to be some give and take. My current problem is how
> to represent what are known in Senjecas as “weak vowels”: I/ɪ; ə/@; and
> ʊ/U.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My first plan was to use ï, ë, and ü. As I am using single and double
> acute accents to indicate tone, the diareses added more clutter above the
> letters, not to mention the occasional turned comma above to indicate
> palatalization and caron to indicate labialization.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Then I went to symbols without diacritics: ı, ə, and y. I really like
> <ı>, but I don’t care for <y> for that sound.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Currently I am using the three vowels with an ogonek: į, ę ,ų. Not bad,
> but there are diacritics. At least they’re below the letters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The other day I was reading her translation of the Babel story and I
> noticed that Ms. Sotomayor had used several IPA symbols in her orthography.
> It didn’t look bad at all! If a conlanger of her caliber could do it, I
> figured I could use non-Latin letters also.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Therefore, I can return to the use of the <ı>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have thought of two possibilities for ʊ/U. I like the idea of the
> turned m <ɯ>. In cursive, the <i> would have one point, the <u> two
> points, and the <ɯ> three points. Another possibility is v with hook <ʋ>.
> However, how is it written in cursive? Maybe with some mark above it as
> is done in cursive Fraktur to distinguish <u> from <n>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am having the most difficulty with the schwa. Here are some
> possibilities using the adverb ‘sanółtęvi’, tonight.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. sanółtęvi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. sanółt ë vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. sanółt ə vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. sanółt ɘ vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. sanółt ε vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 6. sanółt ɜ vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 7. sanółt э vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 8. sanółt є vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #s 1 and 2 are eliminated because of the diacritics. #3 is a
> possibility; it is used in some natlangs . #4 is not pleasing
> esthetically. I see #5 as being easy to write in cursive, #6 not so much.
> I am leaning toward #8. It’s not unattractive and it can be written in
> cursive like #5. Influenced by the numeral 3, I suppose, I see #7 as
> backward.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Opinions, suggestions, comments, etc., welcomed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Charlie
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
Posted by: "C. Brickner" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:07 pm ((PDT))
Thanks. I apologize to all for the large gaps. It didn't look that way when I
typed it!
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
I think I like 2, 5 and 8 best. Of course you are the one who has to live
with the choice you make (until you change your mind!!), but any of them
could work. I don't think any of them would be particularly difficult in
cursive. Cyrilic cursive gets by with a whole bunch of letters that face
the "wrong" way.
Adam
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, C. Brickner <[email protected]>wrote:
> I don’t think I’ll ever be satisfied with the orthography for Senejcas!
> I’m trying to work with seven criteria:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. It can be written in cursive.
>
>
>
> 2. No diacritics.
>
>
>
> 3. No digraphs.
>
>
>
> 4. Latin letters.
>
>
>
> 5. Composed characters for ease in replacing.
>
>
>
> 6. Some semblance of correspondence between the grapheme and some phoneme
> somewhere.
>
>
>
> 7. My own esthetic sense.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Obviously, there has to be some give and take. My current problem is how
> to represent what are known in Senjecas as “weak vowels”: I/ɪ; ə/@; and
> ʊ/U.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My first plan was to use ï, ë, and ü. As I am using single and double
> acute accents to indicate tone, the diareses added more clutter above the
> letters, not to mention the occasional turned comma above to indicate
> palatalization and caron to indicate labialization.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Then I went to symbols without diacritics: ı, ə, and y. I really like
> <ı>, but I don’t care for <y> for that sound.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Currently I am using the three vowels with an ogonek: į, ę ,ų. Not bad,
> but there are diacritics. At least they’re below the letters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The other day I was reading her translation of the Babel story and I
> noticed that Ms. Sotomayor had used several IPA symbols in her orthography.
> It didn’t look bad at all! If a conlanger of her caliber could do it, I
> figured I could use non-Latin letters also.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Therefore, I can return to the use of the <ı>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have thought of two possibilities for ʊ/U. I like the idea of the
> turned m <ɯ>. In cursive, the <i> would have one point, the <u> two
> points, and the <ɯ> three points. Another possibility is v with hook <ʋ>.
> However, how is it written in cursive? Maybe with some mark above it as
> is done in cursive Fraktur to distinguish <u> from <n>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am having the most difficulty with the schwa. Here are some
> possibilities using the adverb ‘sanółtęvi’, tonight.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. sanółtęvi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. sanółt ë vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. sanółt ə vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. sanółt ɘ vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. sanółt ε vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 6. sanółt ɜ vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 7. sanółt э vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 8. sanółt є vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #s 1 and 2 are eliminated because of the diacritics. #3 is a
> possibility; it is used in some natlangs . #4 is not pleasing
> esthetically. I see #5 as being easy to write in cursive, #6 not so much.
> I am leaning toward #8. It’s not unattractive and it can be written in
> cursive like #5. Influenced by the numeral 3, I suppose, I see #7 as
> backward.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Opinions, suggestions, comments, etc., welcomed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Charlie
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:11 pm ((PDT))
What's 8? I like 1 through 4.
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of C. Brickner
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
Thanks. I apologize to all for the large gaps. It didn't look that way when I
typed it!
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
I think I like 2, 5 and 8 best. Of course you are the one who has to live
with the choice you make (until you change your mind!!), but any of them
could work. I don't think any of them would be particularly difficult in
cursive. Cyrilic cursive gets by with a whole bunch of letters that face
the "wrong" way.
Adam
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, C. Brickner <[email protected]>wrote:
> I don’t think I’ll ever be satisfied with the orthography for Senejcas!
> I’m trying to work with seven criteria:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. It can be written in cursive.
>
>
>
> 2. No diacritics.
>
>
>
> 3. No digraphs.
>
>
>
> 4. Latin letters.
>
>
>
> 5. Composed characters for ease in replacing.
>
>
>
> 6. Some semblance of correspondence between the grapheme and some phoneme
> somewhere.
>
>
>
> 7. My own esthetic sense.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Obviously, there has to be some give and take. My current problem is how
> to represent what are known in Senjecas as “weak vowels”: I/ɪ; ə/@; and
> ʊ/U.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My first plan was to use ï, ë, and ü. As I am using single and double
> acute accents to indicate tone, the diareses added more clutter above the
> letters, not to mention the occasional turned comma above to indicate
> palatalization and caron to indicate labialization.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Then I went to symbols without diacritics: ı, ə, and y. I really like
> <ı>, but I don’t care for <y> for that sound.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Currently I am using the three vowels with an ogonek: į, ę ,ų. Not bad,
> but there are diacritics. At least they’re below the letters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The other day I was reading her translation of the Babel story and I
> noticed that Ms. Sotomayor had used several IPA symbols in her orthography.
> It didn’t look bad at all! If a conlanger of her caliber could do it, I
> figured I could use non-Latin letters also.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Therefore, I can return to the use of the <ı>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have thought of two possibilities for ʊ/U. I like the idea of the
> turned m <ɯ>. In cursive, the <i> would have one point, the <u> two
> points, and the <ɯ> three points. Another possibility is v with hook <ʋ>.
> However, how is it written in cursive? Maybe with some mark above it as
> is done in cursive Fraktur to distinguish <u> from <n>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am having the most difficulty with the schwa. Here are some
> possibilities using the adverb ‘sanółtęvi’, tonight.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. sanółtęvi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. sanółt ë vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. sanółt ə vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. sanółt ɘ vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. sanółt ε vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 6. sanółt ɜ vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 7. sanółt э vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 8. sanółt є vi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #s 1 and 2 are eliminated because of the diacritics. #3 is a
> possibility; it is used in some natlangs . #4 is not pleasing
> esthetically. I see #5 as being easy to write in cursive, #6 not so much.
> I am leaning toward #8. It’s not unattractive and it can be written in
> cursive like #5. Influenced by the numeral 3, I suppose, I see #7 as
> backward.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Opinions, suggestions, comments, etc., welcomed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Charlie
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:23 pm ((PDT))
What does your screen reader do with Chralie's different spellings since
they are just different letters to spell exactly the same word?
Adam
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> What's 8? I like 1 through 4.
>
> Mellissa Green
>
>
> @GreenNovelist
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of C. Brickner
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:08 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
>
> Thanks. I apologize to all for the large gaps. It didn't look that way
> when I typed it!
> Charlie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> I think I like 2, 5 and 8 best. Of course you are the one who has to live
> with the choice you make (until you change your mind!!), but any of them
> could work. I don't think any of them would be particularly difficult in
> cursive. Cyrilic cursive gets by with a whole bunch of letters that face
> the "wrong" way.
>
> Adam
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, C. Brickner <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > I don’t think I’ll ever be satisfied with the orthography for Senejcas!
> > I’m trying to work with seven criteria:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. It can be written in cursive.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. No diacritics.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. No digraphs.
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. Latin letters.
> >
> >
> >
> > 5. Composed characters for ease in replacing.
> >
> >
> >
> > 6. Some semblance of correspondence between the grapheme and some phoneme
> > somewhere.
> >
> >
> >
> > 7. My own esthetic sense.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Obviously, there has to be some give and take. My current problem is
> how
> > to represent what are known in Senjecas as “weak vowels”: I/ɪ; ə/@; and
> > ʊ/U.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > My first plan was to use ï, ë, and ü. As I am using single and double
> > acute accents to indicate tone, the diareses added more clutter above the
> > letters, not to mention the occasional turned comma above to indicate
> > palatalization and caron to indicate labialization.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Then I went to symbols without diacritics: ı, ə, and y. I really like
> > <ı>, but I don’t care for <y> for that sound.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Currently I am using the three vowels with an ogonek: į, ę ,ų. Not bad,
> > but there are diacritics. At least they’re below the letters.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The other day I was reading her translation of the Babel story and I
> > noticed that Ms. Sotomayor had used several IPA symbols in her
> orthography.
> > It didn’t look bad at all! If a conlanger of her caliber could do
> it, I
> > figured I could use non-Latin letters also.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Therefore, I can return to the use of the <ı>.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have thought of two possibilities for ʊ/U. I like the idea of the
> > turned m <ɯ>. In cursive, the <i> would have one point, the <u> two
> > points, and the <ɯ> three points. Another possibility is v with hook
> <ʋ>.
> > However, how is it written in cursive? Maybe with some mark above it
> as
> > is done in cursive Fraktur to distinguish <u> from <n>.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am having the most difficulty with the schwa. Here are some
> > possibilities using the adverb ‘sanółtęvi’, tonight.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. sanółtęvi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. sanółt ë vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. sanółt ə vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. sanółt ɘ vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 5. sanółt ε vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 6. sanółt ɜ vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 7. sanółt э vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 8. sanółt є vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #s 1 and 2 are eliminated because of the diacritics. #3 is a
> > possibility; it is used in some natlangs . #4 is not pleasing
> > esthetically. I see #5 as being easy to write in cursive, #6 not so
> much.
> > I am leaning toward #8. It’s not unattractive and it can be written
> in
> > cursive like #5. Influenced by the numeral 3, I suppose, I see #7 as
> > backward.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Opinions, suggestions, comments, etc., welcomed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Charlie
> >
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4f. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:32 pm ((PDT))
Where did he have different spellings? It read the message fine. They just
updated the screen reader. Why do you ask?
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Adam Walker
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
What does your screen reader do with Chralie's different spellings since
they are just different letters to spell exactly the same word?
Adam
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> What's 8? I like 1 through 4.
>
> Mellissa Green
>
>
> @GreenNovelist
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of C. Brickner
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:08 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
>
> Thanks. I apologize to all for the large gaps. It didn't look that way
> when I typed it!
> Charlie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> I think I like 2, 5 and 8 best. Of course you are the one who has to live
> with the choice you make (until you change your mind!!), but any of them
> could work. I don't think any of them would be particularly difficult in
> cursive. Cyrilic cursive gets by with a whole bunch of letters that face
> the "wrong" way.
>
> Adam
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, C. Brickner <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > I don’t think I’ll ever be satisfied with the orthography for Senejcas!
> > I’m trying to work with seven criteria:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. It can be written in cursive.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. No diacritics.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. No digraphs.
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. Latin letters.
> >
> >
> >
> > 5. Composed characters for ease in replacing.
> >
> >
> >
> > 6. Some semblance of correspondence between the grapheme and some phoneme
> > somewhere.
> >
> >
> >
> > 7. My own esthetic sense.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Obviously, there has to be some give and take. My current problem is
> how
> > to represent what are known in Senjecas as “weak vowels”: I/ɪ; ə/@; and
> > ʊ/U.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > My first plan was to use ï, ë, and ü. As I am using single and double
> > acute accents to indicate tone, the diareses added more clutter above the
> > letters, not to mention the occasional turned comma above to indicate
> > palatalization and caron to indicate labialization.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Then I went to symbols without diacritics: ı, ə, and y. I really like
> > <ı>, but I don’t care for <y> for that sound.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Currently I am using the three vowels with an ogonek: į, ę ,ų. Not bad,
> > but there are diacritics. At least they’re below the letters.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The other day I was reading her translation of the Babel story and I
> > noticed that Ms. Sotomayor had used several IPA symbols in her
> orthography.
> > It didn’t look bad at all! If a conlanger of her caliber could do
> it, I
> > figured I could use non-Latin letters also.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Therefore, I can return to the use of the <ı>.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have thought of two possibilities for ʊ/U. I like the idea of the
> > turned m <ɯ>. In cursive, the <i> would have one point, the <u> two
> > points, and the <ɯ> three points. Another possibility is v with hook
> <ʋ>.
> > However, how is it written in cursive? Maybe with some mark above it
> as
> > is done in cursive Fraktur to distinguish <u> from <n>.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am having the most difficulty with the schwa. Here are some
> > possibilities using the adverb ‘sanółtęvi’, tonight.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. sanółtęvi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. sanółt ë vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. sanółt ə vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. sanółt ɘ vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 5. sanółt ε vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 6. sanółt ɜ vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 7. sanółt э vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 8. sanółt є vi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #s 1 and 2 are eliminated because of the diacritics. #3 is a
> > possibility; it is used in some natlangs . #4 is not pleasing
> > esthetically. I see #5 as being easy to write in cursive, #6 not so
> much.
> > I am leaning toward #8. It’s not unattractive and it can be written
> in
> > cursive like #5. Influenced by the numeral 3, I suppose, I see #7 as
> > backward.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Opinions, suggestions, comments, etc., welcomed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Charlie
> >
>
Messages in this topic (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
