Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Harpilan examples (vocab 2.2)

From:Nokta Kanto <red5_2@...>
Date:Monday, December 9, 2002, 5:23
> Reminds me of Chinese (and for the record, I know exactly _this_much_ >about Chinese, so don't laugh when you tell me they look nothing alike).
Well, the only thing they really have in common is lots of straight lines that tend to cross at right angles. They look nothing alike. :)
>I'd like to see a neater example of the writing, perhaps after the same >sentence being practices several times to get it right?
In two weeks or so. Of course, it's hard to do it neatly, because the funny angles and curves are necessary for it to look nice.
>Why does it have to be written only, though? Is it just that you don't >feel like doing the phonology of it? How are you going about deciding
>symbol represents what? Are they a priori or iconic? I'd certainly like >to see more about this writing-language!
The words do not come in sequence. Harpilan lends itself to a style of writing which is not easily spoken. Each word can serve as the topic for another sentence, making harpilan paragraphs come out in a tree rather than a string of ideas. A more complicated statement in harpilan might come out like this: Manuel (he wanted a pet for a long time (like Adnesle, the beautiful tiger-striped cat (his neightbors owned her)), but his mother (she always said pets were a nuisance and they made a mess) wouldn't allow it) bought a cat (it had black and orange-brown stripes (they reminded him of another cat he used to know (but this cat was more laid-back than she was))) after he moved into his own apartment. A mess, but it's much easier to read and understand when written in harpilan. (Sapir-Whorf, anyone? ;) That's why I call writings "paragraphs" rather than "sentences". Harpilan characters are a priori. I made a list of characters and slowly assigned meanings to them. There is a distinction between the characters that have a line going straight through them and those that don't. It sounds funny, but it makes sense visually: you can ignore the characters that don't break the line on the first reading (like the intentional mood marker, or the possessive in the second example), and then come back and see what information they add. It's hard to do that for the other characters. (That's something that I figured out just a few days ago.) There is also a distinction between the characters that are only meaning, and those that also serve for structure. Finally, some symbols are more like punctuation than words; the sentence marker (which appears once in both examples) is like that. ---- Everyone's different, except me. --Noktakanto