Re: OT: Conorthography aesthetics (WAS: Re: Featural code based on ...
| From: | Joe <joe@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 16:45 |
|---|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Johansson" <andjo@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Conorthography aesthetics (WAS: Re: Featural code based on ...
> 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.
ohfv tkeuoh it ihv! wbveuotqh weuonkv wbvihdv hdvih hihteynb, eniiwbvei?
tvhxveuht tbveytkeuhv it wlviyotkh hfveitkvwlvii wlvauitk
tvhxvitbveywvihx...
Incidentally, it's a lot easier to write that to read..
'it' I note, remains unchanged.
> Andreas
>
Reply