To Amber (was: beautiful scripts)
|Date:||Saturday, October 13, 2001, 7:55|
--- Amber Adams <amber@...> wrote:
> > SuomenkieliMaa wrote:
> > By the way, my half-hearted attempt at my conlang
> > (Vya:a:h) has left me stumped.
> Why don't you just squish the characters down?
> For example, a basic word might just use three
> simple symbols, arranged in
> an inverted triangle. However, the nice thing about
> inverted triangles is
> that you can make a larger inverted triangle out of
> three smaller ones.
> So what if in the case of a word using 9 symbols,
> you wrote three triangles
> in the same pattern as the basic word, only each one
> was much smaller,
> squashed into the space meant for a single
> character? That would mean that
> some of your words would be much "denser" than
> others (kind of like the look
> of various Chinese characters on a page) but you
> would preserve the
> look of one triangle for one character.
Already thought of that, but I dislike that "squashed
look" that you adequately describe. It's taken me
almost the entire time I've been conlang'ing (only 1.5
yr) to come up with a visually-appealing, workable
script -- yeah, stupid of me as I did not even have a
vocab system developped! Anyhow, I want to maintain
the forms I now have, in same-size sets of 3 chars per
1 inverted-triangle space. If I go with monosyllable
words like Chinese or Thai, then I don't see a problem
with maintaining the aforementioned design -- but I
don't like monosyllable words. I want huge words
written in an attractive yet "abbreviated" way. Many
thanks for your suggestion, but any other ideas?
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.