Re: Legratec

Philip Newton wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:44:34 +0000, Jan van Steenbergen
><ijzeren_jan@...> wrote:
>
>
>>And then the script. Should I rate it 5 if I use a pre-existing
>>script (like Latin or Cyrillic script)?
>>
>>
>
>My personal opinion: yes, if you've settled on a specific orthography.
>
>For example, if you keep changing your mind whether to use "oe" or "ö"
>or "ø" for /2/, then S must be less than 5, but if you consistently
>use the same Latin/Cyrillic/whatever letter(s) in a given lexeme --
>not necessarily for a given sound -- then I'd say give it S5.
>
>
Well, with Ancient Føtisk,* I just use whatever I feel like at the time.
Ancient Føtisk (and Old F.) predate standardised orthographies. Worse
still because everything I write on a computer obviously wasn't being
written in AD 800, there's at least three ways I'll type certain letters
in, depending on what editorial mode I feel like adopting---sometimes,
I'll transliterate consonantal <i> as <i>, other times as the unicode
chacter <ĭ> (U+012D; i with breve), other times still as <j>. Similarly,
sometimes I'll write any character representing /v/ as <v>, other times
as <ð> (U+00F0; eth), other times still as whatever character best fits
the etymology of the word (which can be <v>, <f>, <b>, <ð>, sometimes
even <h> though I can't remember using it); sometimes I'll just choose
randomly.

I still gave myself S5, though, because I have absolutely no intentions
of ever deciding what to do.

Similarly, I gave myself S5 on Middle Føtisk because I have no
intensions whatsoever of ever coming up with an orthography (let alone a
standardised one) for it (nor a lexicon, or grammar, and it'll certainly
never have any texts). These aren't zeros because I did consider
them---and decided I would say: Buggret! No need for any details!

>So I'd interpret S as "script/orthography" -- a conlang with a
>conscript with a fixed set of glyphs but where I haven't decided what
>sound(s) "[squiggle]" represents or whether to spell [word] with
>[squiggle] or [squiggle] doesn't merit a high S.
>
>
I'd agree entirely.

* Ancient Føtisk is not a conlang, just a lost germanic language that
people who have been to the area it comes from have found no evidence
of, but me on the other side of the world has plenty of it.

--
Tristan.