Script I'm working on

is it considered a syllabary when you have a regular way of representing the vowels? i guess so when you cant write the same vowels alone the same way i supose? very nice looking. the "si" and "wa" can look similar. the curves are on the side thats easier to write, was so easy to try it out on paper, great! i like that it has so few letters that keeps it pretty without having to make lots of differentiations for consonants. if it did need much more consonants it might get confusing... i just dont like the solution for the lone vowels, othen than that, very nice looking script with a really fluid and regular structure(and im all about regular structure!).

The lone vowel thing isn't that common, and I know the /su/-/wa/ /ku/-/n/ can look similar, but I think it should be easy enough to tell by context, at least to a speaker of the language. Also, representing a sound change, when you have ViV or #iV, the i, which was historically pronounced /j/, is now /r\/. Also, the hook on the /n/ glyphs can be omitted or turned into the sort of curve on a g or handwritten y.

Very nice indeed. Not to sound like I'm putting it down, but it does have a familiar format...y'know, kinda like Tengwar. I do like the style though...almost like Old English calligraphy meets a Sino-like syllabary.

Not to sound like I'm putting it down, but it does have a familiar format...y'know, kinda like Tengwar. To me it feels nothing like tengwar; the script is supposed to be quite rigid except some curves that occur when writing two lines at write angles in one stroke. And it really doesn't have diacritics, unless you count the individual vowels, which I probably will change my mind to move anyways... But I'm surprised at how much people are liking it... And if anyone must know, I used Gimp to make it.

To me it feels nothing like tengwar; the script is supposed to be quite rigid except some curves that occur when writing two lines at write angles in one stroke. When I mention Tengwar, I am doing so based on the systematic formation of the graphemes, not because it necessarily resembles Tengwar. http://www.omniglot.com/images/writing/quenya_cons.gif Lines and curves, in standardized variables, that vary in number and position, similar to your script. That's all.

Phonemes /pa/ /Na/ and /ma/ are created by k+wa k+na and n+wa respectively.(those would be syllables rather than phonemes, I think.) That's interesting; especially the <k+na> for /Na/.Oh, I'm not saying /pa/ by itself is a phoneme or anything, just was saying that k+wa = pa, k+we = pe, etc.Oh, I get it. The <k> grapheme indicates that the onset will be a voiceless plosive, the <wa> (or <we> or <wI> or <wu>) that the onset will be bilabial. Or, the <k> grapheme indicates the onset will be velar, the <na> (or <ne> or <nI> or <nu>) grapheme indicates that the onset will be nasal. Or, the <n> grapheme indicates that the onset will be nasal, the <wa> (or <we> or <wI> or <wu>) grapheme indicates that the onset will be bilabial. It isn't really consistent from one set to the other; nor is it intended to be. Readers and writers memorize this. It's not a lot to have to memorize, so the "system" really works just as a mnemonic aid rather than as a "system". Did I get it? Only /t/ /k/ /s/ /n/ can function as codas anyways.So I see. Why do you need separate graphemes for the vowels?

Re: Script I'm working on
Tell me how you like it.

One thing that comes to mind, is that I can easily imagine archivists and copiers (hand- or machine-copying methods) having nightmares over accidentally erasing, smudging, or soaking part of a letter. but that's a very real concern IRL too -- so let that be my way of telling you that your script is highly plausible.

Why do you need separate graphemes for the vowels?How else would you write something like "atansa" for example? (I'm going to answer on-thread instead of in a PM because I think this is interesting about your language's phonology/phontactics as a whole, as well as about the relationship between the script and the phonology or phonotactics.) So you allow word-initial vowels; thus you need graphemes for stand-alone vowels. I got the impression your dominant syllable-type was "CV". So your syllable structure is something like (C)V(C)? Or, perhaps, "CV(C) or (C)VC"? In other words, which of V, VC, or CVC types are allowed and which are not? Do you allow vowel-clusters in a word? How long are the longest vowel-clusters allowed in a word? Like, could a word have a CV syllable followed by a V syllable followed by a VC syllable, thus making CVVVC have a three-vowel cluster in the word? I take it two-consonant clusters are allowed in a word, but not word-initially and not word-finally, and three-or-more-consonant clusters are not allowed?

View Full Version: Script I'm working on