Phon
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/phon.php Phon is a universal auxiliary writing system invented by Samuel Putman. Universal because, like the International Phonetic Alphabet, Phon can be used in principle to write any statement in any language. Auxiliary because, like Esperanto, Phon is not designed to replace existing natural scripts, but rather to offer a way for all peoples of the world to write, precisely, the statements they wish to make. Therefore, Phon is featural, representing sounds by the shapes of the individual glyphs. Featural writing systems have been designed before, and Phon owes a debt to these. In particular, it can be considered a descendant of the Tengwar, although it uses the basic scheme in a different manner. Consonants are composed of a stem (the sirpe) which shows the locations where the sound is articulated, and a leaf (lasse) showing place of articulation. Vowels also have a rational form, and can be placed above or below the lasse of a consonant, or over a bare sirpe to represent dipthongs and isolated vowels. Furthermore, Phon is designed so that every stroke, and hence every character, exhibits asymmetry over the vertical axis. That is to say, no characters take the form of the letter 'w', which is symmetrical a cross its own axis, and no characters take the forms of the lowercase letters 'b' and 'd', which are mirrors of each other across this axis. As a result, Phon can be written and understood in either direction, and with either hand, without changing the shapes of the strokes. So, without sounding like a raving lunatic, let me just say that I find this script to be just about the ugliest thing in a long while. It only comes close to achiving it's seemingly primary goal...to write any/every lang possible. If one looks closely enough it lacks several features that it might need to totally and accurately right EVERY lang in existance. Also, it's more or less just a curvy version of Tengwar with added silly-ness. Phonetic, featural scripts in general are not bad ideas, but to attempt to encompass every possible sound, and rely mostly on a cliche script for your base design, is just bad scripting IMHO.

Hi! I'm the developer of Phon. I'm not sure what point there is in having a discussion that starts with this kind of cursory dismissal, but I did join this forum to discuss international auxiliary alphabets, and Phon in particular, so here goes. The system implements the IPA fairly closely, and therefore succeeds at least as well as the IPA does in representing all languages. The chart on Omniglot does not show the tonal and stress elements of the language, because they aren't fully developed to my own satisfaction; but the potential is there, and the script is in a fairly complete form as is. This is discussed in the book, which you haven't read, clearly; but then, why would you have? The script is in fact based on nineteen strokes, three primitive, four primary combinations, and twelve recombinations of those four primaries. The resemblance to Tengwar is obvious, of course, and they share several exact characters in common, albiet with different values. But this is a case of extracting the morphology of Tengwar, modifying it, and building a new morphology on that basic block. Tengwar is a cliche? Odd. I thought it was merely the most successful conscript ever invented. In turn, I credit this not only to Tolkein's exceptional imagination and sense of aesthetics, but also to his training as a professor of ancient languages. It incorporates insight into how to build a featural language which I consider basically right, and am perfectly happy to build on. If you'd like to continue this discussion, can I recommend reading a couple chapters out of the book? Phon's versatility, and that which distinguishes it from a mere Elvish clone, is mostly under the hood. If you were to read the introduction and history chapter, and then the chapter on form and morphology, you would have a much better, and I daresay more sympathetic, sense of what's going on with this script. The book can be found at the very page you so helpfully linked to in creating this topic. I am quite interested in discussing this subject with you, but I must say, I found your original post extremely dismissive. Well and good, you're entitled as a critic; but if the conversation continues to strike me as vague or abusive, I'll not waste my time here. In being critical, try to be specific. Thanks!

Hi! I'm the developer of Phon. Hello and welcome. I'm not sure what point there is in having a discussion that starts with this kind of cursory dismissal, but I did join this forum to discuss international auxiliary alphabets, and Phon in particular, so here goes. Well, how would you feel about cursory praise? I'd find it lame, but that's just me. If you insist on there being a point of having these types of discussions, it's more-or-less to come together with others that share a fascination with writing systems. The chart on Omniglot does not show the tonal and stress elements of the language, because they aren't fully developed... Yet you precede that with; The system implements the IPA fairly closely, and therefore succeeds at least as well as the IPA does in representing all languages. So, which is it? It can't be both. Tengwar is a cliche? Odd. I thought it was merely the most successful conscript ever invented. Yes, a cliche. Every punk who's seen the LOTR movies thinks that Tengwar is the most beautiful things since rainbows. It's no longer unique, no longer cool, more of a cliche than anything. And your definition of a conscript is obviously different than some...Hangeul is a conscript in my book, far more "successful" than Tengwar. If you were to read the introduction and history chapter, and then the chapter on form and morphology, you would have a much better, and I daresay more sympathetic... Sympathetic? You wish for sympathy? And unless my reading any portion of that book will fundementally change the appearance and function of "Phon", than no, my attitude towards it's obvious Tengwar birth won't change one iota. I am quite interested in discussing this subject with you, but I must say, I found your original post extremely dismissive. If your interest is sincere, than any type of criticism will come as at least proof that someone has looked over your work, and if you think my initial post was dismissive, I'm curious to know how you might of reacted to a simple "Ewww!". Well and good, you're entitled as a critic; but if the conversation continues to strike me as vague or abusive, I'll not waste my time here. In being critical, try to be specific. I was fairly specific in my initial post, in case you missed it; Your script is a rehash of Tengwar and fails to meet your claims of encompassing all possible sounds...specific enough?

...you're the admin of this place? Wow. Okay. Have fun! :lol:

Frankly, I agree with Sano. It looks like someone vomited up some spaghetti. Admittedly, that's purely my own aesthetic opinion, and can't be argued - just as the fact that it looks tengwarish is an opinion. One could also say it looks like epileptic Armenian. As to the specifics of the goal - that's the major flaw. I've seen Sano rip something apart for ugly, and praise it for succeeding at its goal. He doesn't hold back. Deal.

"The well known dislike/disdain of me within the conworld community." I get it. You're a hater. No, atman, you've read it wrong. I'm not the hater, I am the one who is disliked, and that quote has a good bit of age on it. Secondly, turning this discussion personal will bring it to a screeching halt, so please, refrain. The script is obviously, even matter-of-factly, descended from Tengwar; you could say it's in the Tengwar family if you wanted. Admitting you have an addiction is the first step to recovery, kudos. There are mechanisms for dealing with tone and stress and some other suprasegmental qualities. I believe they can be improved on, and I'm not sharing yet. Yet, you not only submitted it to omniglot, you've come here to say that critique was "cursory"...I guess if it was, it fit well with the script then, huh? My goal is to build a featural writing system which covers the phonemic state space, is easy to use and understand, and is attractive. Well, it doesn't cover "phonemic state space" it takes more than one book to understand, right?...and as mentioned, looking similar to Tengwar doesn't get you an automatic passing grade in the art department. But probably not, if you're such a well-known hater that you felt the need to acknowledge it in public. More likely because you've confronted me in public... Why would I take the time to read 78 pages by someone who tries to insult me? Someone whose main argument for his script is roughly; "Tolkien did it and people like it so there!"... If you would like to continue, you are more than welcome, but the personal references are not only not ok, they will, if continual, leave you out of the conversation. I've seen Sano rip something apart for ugly, and praise it for succeeding at its goal. I fear your point may be wholly misunderstood.

This conversation has been boring and unproductive. Although the bit about epileptic Armenian had a certain flair.

I happen to like featural scripts. A lot of people don't. Leaving aside for the moment as much like or dislike as the "featural" feature (!) of Phon garners, still, one must admit it looks an awful lot like Tengwar. That's not just an obligatory, tired joke; it's my main impression (as well as many others'). Now, you said "it could be considered a descendant of Tengwar". Does that mean you have a story by which it became so descended? If so, perhaps that would count as creative, rather than imitative. --------- So much for esthetics and creativity (I think it's pretty (obviously people who compare it to regurgitated pasta don't) but I don't think it's creative); people also have a right to discuss whether the Phon script meets its stated design goals. I have reason to doubt that it actually can write any phoneme of any natlang that exists. Sure, it can do anything the IPA chart can do; but the IPA chart does not, in fact, cover every natlang that exists; it only covers those that the chart-designers knew about the last time they revised it. Also, Phon appears to include some features that don't occur as distinctive characteristics in any known natlang; or at least not in many well-known ones. So it both has too many and too few features. The trouble is not so much with Phon's attempt at this goal, as with the achievability of this goal itself; I don't think it can be achieved, at least not as stated. And finally there could be conlangs or alien languages or non-human languages in which there are sounds that human mouths can't make, or that humans just never include in natural languages; or, some pairs of sounds that are phonemically different in some conlang, or non-human language, that are never distinguished in actual existing natlangs as far as anyone knows. It might be better to try to make the goal be "the Phon featural script can be used to write any phone that exists in the most recent IPA chart". ----------------- Then there are readability/writability issues; practical issues, in other words. Phon may suffer from many of the same defects Tengwar suffers from. Also, it may suffer from many of the same defects many other featural scripts suffer from. Other than those, I don't think it has any readability/writability issues; but those may be too much already, and/or perhaps you could put more effort into overcoming them.

First, let me thank you for being polite. I'm both aware of the difference and responsive to it. Looking at Phon, someone who knows scripts can immediately see two things: it isn't Tengwar, and it's related. That's no surprise. Someone who knows scripts can look at Tibetan and know that a) it isn't Devanagiri and b) it's related. It's the same sort of thing. Do I have a story for how Phon is descended from Tengwar? Seemed like an odd question at first. I think I get it now. There are the Tengwar, crafted by Feanor in an imaginary universe before he made some interesting jewels that got everyone in a proper tizzy. And there are the Tengwar, invented by J.R.R. Tolkien, who was, first and foremost, a linguist. Phon is descended from these real-world Tengwar, and that alphabet was chosen not because elves are nifty, but because Tolkien was helluva linguist, and the basic schema he outlined for a featural writing system is one I agree with. So I chose Tengwar as the basis for Phon. Phon exists in the real world; inventing a language and culture to go with it aren't a relevant part of the project. I have no interest in whether this makes it more or less creative; the project would probably be more creative with a theme song, as well, but I'm not planning one. As for its design goals, well, one of them is to implement the state space of the IPA completely. Thus, anything which can be written down in IPA can in principle be written down in Phon, because there is always at least one way to write something that is equivalent, and sometimes more than one way. Having completed the tone groups earlier this week, I believe this task to be complete. That takes care of 'known knowns': Phon can cover the phonemic state space as recognized by the IPA in 2005, the last date of revision. There are also 'known unknowns': it is probable that there are are existing natlangs that use distinctions which are inconvenient, innacurate, or impossible to transcribe using the IPA. Phon has a lot of room for expansion and growth, due to its combinatoric nature; we are prepared to take these cases as they come. In fact I welcome examples of that kind, because it will help me grow the script. Then there are 'unknown unknowns': sound distinctions people might invent for conlangs, or whatever passes for speech among aliens, real or otherwise. This is not a subject of pressing interest to me. If one wants to build on the Phon base, developing all sorts of strange consonants, eldrich vowels, or a system for transcribing the speech of Puppeteers (tonal over several octaves with two mouths and a completely different dental and tongue structure, according to Larry Niven), more power to them. There are in fact more characters than are strictly needed to write IPAese. It's not clear to me how this is a critique. If there is at least one way to write everything in IPA, surely it doesn't matter if there is more than one in some cases? If Phon includes graphemes for the entire IPA (extensions aside), how could it matter if other sounds, such as whistles, are represented also? Exceeding goals is often encouraged.... If readability or writability issues could be clearly identified, I might be interested in trying to address them. I've given a lot of thought to how to modify Phon characters for printing at a small type, say 12; with vowels as small as they are that's probably the smallest realistic type face, which is okay. Nothing vague, please; keep in mind I can read it just fine and write it fluently on a daily basis. Last but not least. I have produced a chart which describes the system better, and includes information missing from the omniglot page at the present time. You can get it here: http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?u=722081 I welcome comments, especially polite ones.

That takes care of 'known knowns': Phon can cover the phonemic state space as recognized by the IPA in 2005, the last date of revision. There are also 'known unknowns': it is probable that there are are existing natlangs that use distinctions which are inconvenient, innacurate, or impossible to transcribe using the IPA. Phon has a lot of room for expansion and growth, due to its combinatoric nature; we are prepared to take these cases as they come. In fact I welcome examples of that kind, because it will help me grow the script. Then there are 'unknown unknowns': sound distinctions people might invent for conlangs, or whatever passes for speech among aliens, real or otherwise. This is not a subject of pressing interest to me. If one wants to build on the Phon base, developing all sorts of strange consonants, eldrich vowels, or a system for transcribing the speech of Puppeteers (tonal over several octaves with two mouths and a completely different dental and tongue structure, according to Larry Niven), more power to them. Your Rumsfeldian tone is more than amusing. I welcome comments, especially polite ones. Who determines politeness? Apparently dry, non-personal criticism is something you consider to be rude, oh so sorry for that, as it is my most enduring quality...by far. If you were truly concerned about "politeness", you wouldn't have made those personal comments about me, based on, seemingly little more than me giving my honest and direct opinion about your Tengwar IPA cipher-script. Now, you've contradicted yourself, tried to insult me, avoided my on-topic and serious questions and also made it clear to me that your so caught up in being "right" and promoting your cipher-script that you can't maintain a conversation without divergent remarks. Lastly, you've ignored guideline #8. 8) To avoid appearing self-absorbed, one should respond to topics started by others more often than starting topics of one's own. If you come here to pimp your stuff and never contribute anything else, you may just find your stuff gone. This topic will remain locked until someone convinces me that you're more than the sum of your Phon.

Unlocked.

Phon is a prime example of a script that is too featural. Every letter starts to look like every other, just look at the sample text. And it's too stylized. Why does the vertical bar (in neary every glyph, sigh) need to be wavy? This might be salvagable if rendered more simply, but then it would still just be a variation on Tengwar.