Re: USAGE: Adapting non-Latin scripts

Philip Newton wrote at 2006-05-24 15:39:36 (+0200)
 > On 5/24/06, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote:
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > >From: Michael Adams <abrigon@...>
 >
 > > >I know for my conlang, it does not fit well, or can be
 > > >okay, but since my conlang is mostly things like
 > > >consonant-vowel combos, then would the latin be better
 > > >or .. soemthing like Sanskrit or what wring form?
 > >
 > > Mostly CV syllables seems an ideal job for something like
 > > Devanagari (the Sanskrit script), or any of the other Indic
 > > scripts.
 >
 > Or an abugida along the lines of Ethiopian? That encodes CV in one
 > sign, but doesn't use the "no diacritic = inherent vowel" principle
 > of Devanagari.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  AFAICS "encodes CV in one
sign" and "no diacritic = inherent vowel" are equivalent statements in
this context.  The Ethiopic vowel series aren't quite "diacritics" as
the matras of Indic scripts are, and there isn't an unambiguous
virama, but the basic form of the consonant certainly implies an
inherent vowel.

http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j19/ethiopic.php
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ethiopic.htm

 >
 > > I suspect if you had overwhelmingly CV syllables, you might
 > > prefer a straight syllabary like Japanese or UCAS.
 >
 > I'd call UCAS an abugida rather than a "straight syllabary" -- the
 > forms for syllables with a common consonant but different vowels are
 > obviously related.

Really, it doesn't fit any of the conventional categories neatly.  The
problem with calling it an abugida is that it's difficult to say what
the inherent vowel is, i.e. which orientation is to be taken as basic.