From: Roly Sookias (rolysookias@talk21.com)
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 03:40:04 MST
[yash]
When I was a kid, I invented a simpler alphabet based on the one we use. It
was simpler in terms of necessary strokes. It ended up being very triangular
indeed. I don't think it would be useful in cursive writing.
[roly]
Your old alphabet sounds interesting - do you have a copy of it that you
could scan for me?! I do feel that being able to use the alphabet for
cursive writing would be important (although if this wasn't a requirement it
would be a lot easier to think of symbols!) for obvious reasons, but angular
fgorms would be als very useful for quick engraving (as paper a pen are less
commonly found than rocks or wood!).
[yash]
I would say what you need to target is the unicity of (letter, sound) pairs
(speaking like a French Mathematician here). In other words, Each letter
must give one and only one sound, and your alphabet must cover all possible
sounds (dismiis all slight sonic variations for simplification - no need to
go all the way like Sanskrit does).
[roly]
The problem with covering all possible sounds is that many would find the
alphabet daunting and perhaps even "worse" than the old one! I stress that I
would try to cover all sounds in the tongues I know, and perhaps others
could add to it. Sounds that aren't used in any language at all would be
pointless to include, although writing "noises" in books could become more
accurate if they were included! I do stress that I would try to keep it as
"letter per sound", but with sounds like the j in job or the ch in church,
two letters could be used. For the j, a d followed by a j as in j'aime could
be used and for the ch, a t followed by a c (to represent the sh sound in
shrink) could be used. On the other hand, separate symbols could be devised
for these. What do you think?
Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:38 MDT