Re: Neo-cuneifoem (was: Optimum number of symbols)
|From:||Paul Bennett <paul.bennett@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, May 22, 2002, 19:59|
Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote the following on
Wed, May 22 2002 7:45:09 PM +0100
> At 3:01 pm -0400 21/5/02, Paul Bennett wrote:
> >Funny you should mention that. I'm working on a scriptthat
> >is to Cuneiform as Demotic is to Egyptian, and writtenwith
> >a pen or brush, to boot.
> Yes, that's the sort of thing I had in mind.
> Clearly in ordinary handwriting one wouldn't produce
> characters like
> printed cuneiform (unless, as Tim observed, you used clay
> and wedge :)
> Some sort of handwriten form would've developed for
> writing on paper -
> maybe with a bush in earlier times but now, surely, with
> a (ball-point)
Yeah. I started with a calligraphy pen from the local
supermarket, trying to write coptic-with-hebrew-loan-graphs
and just doodled my way into making a syllabary that
covered most of the basic set (or at least the part I
pi bi pu bu mi mu ip up
and similarly for t, k, and so on.
This became stylised down and down until perhaps 8 or 10
unique graphical elements are used to write the whole
symbol set. It works pretty darned good for a tinkertoy.
> >Just thought I'd start participating early.
> Well, in the neo-cuneiform develoment of the thread, at
> least :)
Hey, it's a start, isn't it??? :)
> Welcome back to the list.