Re: The Glyphica Arcana

Jim Henry wrote:
> On 12/14/05, Jefferson Wilson <jeffwilson63@...> wrote:
>
>>My current conlang project is The Glyphica Arcana
>>(http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/myths/BabelTarot.html).
>>This is a completely written (no verbal form) ideographic
>>language ....
>
> Neat.  Have you looked at other ideographic
> conlangs, such as Harpelan and Pinuyo?
>
> http://www.ewoudnet.nl/ruittenb/pinuyo/
> http://www.geocities.com/noktakanto/index.html
No I hadn't.  Right now the Glyphica Arcana seems to be more
developed than either of these, or the other written languages
they link to.  It's also (IMO) more attractive, though _much_
more difficult to master for English speakers.

>>out how to distinguish elements in phrases from elements in the
>>main sentence.  Since the language marks whether an element is
>>subject, direct object, or indirect object, I've dispensed with
>>active/passive/etc. voice.  Any opinions on this?
>
> OK, so if subject always corresponds to agent
> and direct object always corresponds to patient
> and indirect object always corresponds to recipient,
> you don't need voice.  But how do you mark non-agent
> experiencers and topics?  As subject or direct object,
> or with another case?
Could you provide me with an example?

One thing the Glyphica Arcana does is provide a wide variety of
moods: Indicative, Contrary, Imperative, Interrogative,
Conditional, Possible, and I'd be willing to add others.  The
different moods can often be used to emulate the purposes for
which English uses voice.

While we're on the subject of verb modifiers, the Glyphica Arcana
  only distinguishes three verb forms:  Perfective, Progressive,
and Directive.  Are there any similar forms people have played
around with?

--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/

Reply