Re: Q's Re: A conlang idea rolling around in my head

--- David Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...> wrote:

>But
> ever since that time, my mind has
> thought about nothing else--NOTHING--but creating a
> pictograph language.
> It's driven me wild.
<snip>

My sincere appologies.  I had no idea it was
contageous or I would have avoided exposing others to
the infection. ;)

> With that said, I have a few questions:
>
<snip>

>In a pictograph
> language, should you try to
> keep it all pictures, or all abstracts?
<snip>
> Q to Gary: What was your language like, with respect
> to the models outlined
> above?   I'm eager to devour any info you can
> remember.
>
When I started tmy first Pictographic language I was
also in my second year of night school studies in
American Sign Language and some of my glyphs tended to
resemble, at least superficially, a stylized or
schematic version of the sign language sign.

In general my main focus was on keeping the symbols
clean and legible.  I wanted to avoid the
over-crowded, cluttered and cramped look of most
Chinese pictograms.  They just have too many lines.  I
tried to adhere to an absolute maximum of 4 pen
strokes for any glyph.  If I had to sacrifice
"representationalism" for economy of line, I always
choose the more abstract but graphically simpler
version.

Here are a few notes quick-and-dirty with pictures I
uploaded to my web space:
http://fiziwig.com/glyph.html