Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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: > [snip] > > > >Funny you should mention that. I'm working on a script
> >is to Cuneiform as Demotic is to Egyptian, and written
> >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) > pen.
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 needed), viz: 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.
Thanks! --- Pb