Re: My Script

kljensen@image.dk writes:
>If I may express a critique though. I'm not too keen on its
>sheer regularity. You appear to have fixed every glitch that the
>original Tagalog script had, like its original inability to represent
>syllable final consonants. It makes it seem 'constructed'. To keep
>things naturalistic, you could keep some irregularities and glitches
>here and there. All scripts have them in some form or another, and I
>know how there is a tendency for all of us conscripters (new word?)
>to enforce regularity in our scripts and to fix all its glitches. But
>all natural scripts have their peculiarities.

That is until people realize they are peculiar, and fix them =P

>There are generally two
>types: underrepresentation, and over representation.
Well Kristian =), to a non conlanger (I.E. my friends =) ), they wouldnt
think about that LOL. Anyway,  maybe i will provide an innovation like
what you mentioned with the kavi script. But, since their language, and so
have they diverged from the tagalogs, i think its suitable for the script
to become more regular =).  I was pointing in  the direction that the
Jakautdoks realized how deficient their script originally was, and strived
to make it more suitable for their language, when i created the script
=). Now, you agree that accents and glottal stops are important for being
understood when speaking in tagalog right? Well, as i mentioned, the
Jakautdok script doesn't represent accents and glottal stops, so there is
one peculiarity :) LOL.
>
>
>Based on its history, I don't think overrepresentation is a realistic
>option for your script. But underrepresentation, now _there_ is an
>option:
>
>You could for instance keep all original characters and have some
>characters represent two different sounds since the language has more
>sounds than the original Tagalog script - underrepresentation. For
>instance, when the Ilocanos used the script, <l> and <r> were
>underrepresented by the same graph. You could also keep its inability
>to represent syllable final consonants - more underrepresentation. Of
>course there shouldn't be too much underrepresentation. There should
>be a balance to make it fairly readable.
I was thinking about that. I did do some of that. For instance E and I are
essentially the same character, but one is turned upside down. With U and
O, one is reflected from the other. Hmm, good points Kristian, i probably
will implement those =).
>
>
>There was a time when Spanish authorities tried to introduce a
>'virama' (or vowel killer) in order to represent syllable final
>consonants. The Tagalogs dismissed it as an unatural innovation. But
>if the Jakautdoks did not, then that would explain its existence in
>the script.
>
>On the other hand, the Jakautdoks could have innovated something
>quite similar themselves. In the ancient Kavi script, which was
>probably the forerunner of the Tagalog script, syllable final
>consonants were not only represent through a virama, but through
>clusters of two graphs. The one on top represented (in most cases) a
>syllable final consonant while the vowel diacritic (or inherent <a>)
>was applied to the lower graph. This is one option that your script
>could have adopted.
hmm........i like the simple virama better =).
>
>I'm rambling with ideas and opinions. Sorry! This is your conscript,
>conculture, and conlang. So you're in the end the one who will make
>the 'construction' decisions, not me. But your options are limitless
>when you know the history of Indic scripts.
>
>-kristian- 8)

Oh of course. Actually i welcome thoughts and suggestions. But you do have
some points such as some peculiarites. The one i like the most is
representing sounds that are close with the same character (like p with f,
etc.)
>


____________________________________________________________________

                    "Bailando en el fuego con un gran deseo" - India

____________________________________________________________________