Re: OT: Conorthography aesthetics (WAS: Re: Featural code based on ...

On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 05:16 , Andreas Johansson wrote:

> Quoting "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@...>:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:26:00PM +0200, Andreas Johansson wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> g0miileg0's orthography isn't among the most aesthetically appealing
>>> I've seen, but beyond the use of "0" as a letter there's nothing much I
>>> actively dislike. Pete's system, OTOH, includes stuff like _euohfv_,
>>> which makes French look downright stunning by comparison.
>> [snip]
>>
>> You think that's bad? the ASCII transcription of Ebisedian is worse.
>> Unconsciably ugly, as Jesse Bangs says. :-) As an example, take the
>> following text:
>>
>>         tww'ma esa'ni erosa'ni t3
>>                 zota' katou' ke.
>>                 zota' cutou' ce.
>>                 zota' rotou' re.
>>                 keve ta'ma ebu' n3 Ta'l3n di gh3'.
>>         t3m3t3
>>                 my'nac3 katui' ke.
>>                 my'nac3 cutui' ce.
>>                 my'nac3 rotui' re.
>>                 Ta'lin. kil3 icu'ro bis33'di.
>>         t3m3.
>
> Beyond the atrocious use of "3" as a letter, I don't think that's even
> close
> to the terribleness of Peter's system.
...and I don't even find that atrocious.  The sign traditionally used in
transcribing
the ancient Egyptian [?] is remarkably like 3, so I guess I've sort of got
used to
seeing it.

In fact, H.S Teoh, but I don't find the example of Eisedian at all ugly.
in fact,
I like it - I find it attractive.


Ray
===============================================
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
===============================================

Reply