----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Garcia" <barry_garcia@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: Deseret alphabet
> Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> writes:
> >What's ugly in it? It's just different and uncommon, i.e. ideal for a
> >conlang.
>
> For me it looks a bit too contrived
I.e. too planned, too CONstructed?
> and i simply just don't like the
> letter forms.
That's your opinion. I like them.
>
> What's strange to me is certain glyphs seem to show a phonetic
> relationship (k and g),
Like P and B in the capital Latin alphabet.
> but others, which you'd think would have the same
> visual relationship (short and long ah) don't.
Like K and G in the capital Latin alphabet.
If you want visual relationships, the Shavian alphabet is a possibility.
IMO if there was a visual relationship between the shapes of letters which
represent similar sounds, the script would look again more contrived.
>
> In my opinion, what's ideal for a conlang is to create your own script for
> it. This gives you free reign and you don't have to do fancy diacritics if
> you don't want to.
>
:-) I've created my own script. And I did fancy diacritics 'cause I did want
to.
In fact I didn't create a script for my conlang but a conlang for my script.
Jean-François Colson
jfcolson@belgacom.net