Re: SCript

On Tuesday 28 May 2002 15:13, Balazs Sudar wrote:
> I thought about a language - still not invented - based on the
> triconsonantal system. What's more important is the idea of its script. I
> had the idea of a script, that describes the triconsonantal roots, and has
> 1 sign for the row of vowels put between the consonants. That means an
> alphabet with only consonants, and another kind of signs standing for the
> vowels-combinations. Or I could write signs describing words (verb with its
> correct forms, noun with cases, numbers, or anything), but all this with 1
> sign (this could mean sings standing for only one vowel too, so I can write
> words that has not the same root system, for example "yes", or anything).
> Do you think this thing has a sense?????
        One thing I like about this list is that it provides so many useful
distractions from the tyrany of pressing distractions, such as that 25 page
paper that is due tomorrow. :)
        *cough* Well, no one seems to have responded, so I might as well. If I
understand your first proposal, you would have something like the following:
        1-S-l-m = {shalam} = v. to be peaceful, be at peace
        2-S-l-m = {shalum} = n. peace
        3-S-l-m = {shalim} = adj. peaceful
        4-S-l-m = {shilam} = adv. peacefully
        etc...
(Note--any resemblence to Hebrew is a mistake.)
        If you have only three vowels, say [i a u], and a strict C-V-C-V-C system,
then that would give you nine possible derivations: i-i, i-a, i-u, a-i, a-a,
a-u, u-i, u-a, u-u. This could be rather ideal for a auxlang, but anything
with more naturalistic tendencies is going to give you a headache. For
instance, if you allow a rule for possible final vowel, that will give you 36
possibilities (3x3x4, with the fourth being a "null" vowel). Let's say that
you want the vowels to possibly appear initially, medially, and finally. So
that means that you have 4x4x4x4=256 possibilities. Clearly, you are in for a
world of pain. :)
        As for your second proposal; hmm, that might be easier to handle. Even
irregulars could be handled; for instance, if the normal pattern for a verb
is CaCaC, but you see Verb-m-r-t (to die) and know that it is irregular, than
you would know that is it really pronounced "amirato" instead of "marat." Of
course, if you didn't know that it was irregular or just didn't know the word
period, you would be laughed out of the classroom, humiliated before your
peers, castigated for your illiteracy...but I digress.
        Something to play with, I'll agree, but I haven't even started on things
like plurals, conjugations, declensions, etc.
        :Peter


> I'd like the people who know arabic, hebrew, or any of these languages to
> tell me some opinions... Maybe it's too difficult to be useful.
>
> Balazs

Replies