Re: Deseret alphabet
| From: | Barry Garcia <barry_garcia@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, August 27, 2003, 21:07 |
|---|
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 and i simply just don't like the
letter forms.
What's strange to me is certain glyphs seem to show a phonetic
relationship (k and g), but others, which you'd think would have the same
visual relationship (short and long ah) don't.
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.
Reply