 |
Vreleksá
The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| langover94 wrote: | | Hemicomputer wrote: | maybe <sh> or <š> for /S/?
maybe <zh> or <ž> for /Z/?
maybe <gg> or <q> for /G/? |
I believe that David and Serali were working on a script for this lang, however I don't know how far they are along. I like this idea so that we can actually convey our thoughts through typing.
I like the idea of using the thorn and the other thing for /D/ (IDK what its called). However if we're going to use that, then I don't think that we should use hacheks for fricatives, as those are mostly in Slavic languages.
By the way... Where is David? |
So, you're vote goes to to <ð> for /D/ and <sh> for /S/? How do you feel about <þ> for /T/? How do you think /G/ should be shown? Since you're opposed to S and Z hacheks, I'm guessing you wouldn't like them on G either. Personally I like <q> for /G/, as <gg> could get confusing if one of our word structures ends up allowing for double consonants.
I don't know where David is. He's been missing for quite a while. Why are we typing so small? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aeetlrcreejl
Joined: 08 Jun 2007
Posts: 583
Location: Over yonder
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Q for /G/ may work.
David's board has been down for quite a while. yssida's been gone as well.
_________________
Tiedämme missä asut.
Tamaqqut qantib.
Selæm ùthakyvl.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | So, you're vote goes to to <ð> for /D/ and <sh> for /S/? |
Yes.
| Quote: | | How do you feel about <þ> for /T/? |
I think I said in my other post that I liked that. It would match the Icelandic orthography that I would like. (<þ> is called a thorn, in case you didn't know.)
However this is only my personal opinion, we should really have a more concrete vote in order to make the orthography final.
_________________
Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| langover94 wrote: |
However this is only my personal opinion, we should really have a more concrete vote in order to make the orthography final. |
Yes, the voting shall start here.
š for /S/: Aeetlrcreejl
sh for /S/: langover94
ž for /Z/: Aeetlrcreejl
zh for /Z/: langover94
ǧ for /G/: Aeetlrcreejl
gg for /G/: ?
q for /G/: Hemicomputer
ð for /D/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl
dh for /D/: ?
þ for /T/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl
th for /T/: ?
Primary stress indicators?
Yes: Hemicomputer
No: Aeetlrcreejl
To vote, just make a post clearly stating your opinions. This post will be updated with each vote.
Last edited by Hemicomputer on Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeetlrcreejl
Joined: 08 Jun 2007
Posts: 583
Location: Over yonder
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
š for /S/: Aeetlrcreejl doesn't like digraphs
sh for /S/: langover94
ž for /Z/: Aeetlrcreejl
zh for /Z/: langover94
ǧ for /G/: Aeetlrcreejl, but if this doesn't make it he can live with <q>
gg for /G/: ?
q for /G/: Hemicomputer, possibly Aeetlrcreejl
ð for /D/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl
dh for /D/: ?
þ for /T/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl
th for /T/: ?
Primary stress indicators?
Yes: Hemicomputer
No: Aeetlrcreejl - Comrade Eldin made some rules for stress, did he not?
_________________
Tiedämme missä asut.
Tamaqqut qantib.
Selæm ùthakyvl.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeetlrcreejl wrote: | | Comrade Eldin made some rules for stress, did he not? |
Yes, but it would be nice to have that indicated instead of memorizing all the stress rules.
Thanks for the input. It was intended, though, that you just say how you vote and then the original post is updated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
š for /S/: Aeetlrcreejl, langover94
sh for /S/:
ž for /Z/: Aeetlrcreejl, langover94
zh for /Z/: ?
ǧ for /G/: Aeetlrcreejl, langover94
gg for /G/: ?
q for /G/: Hemicomputer, possibly Aeetlrcreejl
ð for /D/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl
dh for /D/: ?
þ for /T/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl
th for /T/: ?
Primary stress indicators?
Yes: Hemicomputer
No: Aeetlrcreejl - Comrade Eldin made some rules for stress, did he not?
Now that I think about it, perhaps we could mix some of the letters of origin, although I think that the digraphs would be easier to type.
_________________
Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| langover94 wrote: |
Now that I think about it, perhaps we could mix some of the letters of origin, although I think that the digraphs would be easier to type. |
We've been forgetting about the options of <j> for /Z/ and <c> for /S/. I think these options work best as they avoid the main disadvantage of digraphs (wasted space) and the main disadvantage of hacheks (hard to type).
Updated chart is:
š for /S/: Aeetlrcreejl, langover94
sh for /S/:
c for /S/: Hemicomputer
ž for /Z/: Aeetlrcreejl, langover94
zh for /Z/:
j for /Z/: Hemicomputer
ǧ for /G/: Aeetlrcreejl, langover94
gg for /G/:
q for /G/: Hemicomputer, possibly Aeetlrcreejl
ð for /D/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl, Hemicomputer
dh for /D/:
þ for /T/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl, Hemicomputer
th for /T/:
Primary stress indicators?
Yes:
No: Aeetlrcreejl, Hemicomputer (after some thought, PSIs are a bad idea) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tolkien_Freak
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 366
Location: Eyeru
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Updated chart is:
š for /S/: Aeetlrcreejl, langover94, T_F
sh for /S/:
c for /S/: Hemicomputer
ž for /Z/: Aeetlrcreejl, langover94, T_F
zh for /Z/:
j for /Z/: Hemicomputer
ǧ for /G/: Aeetlrcreejl, langover94, T_F
gg for /G/:
q for /G/: Hemicomputer, possibly Aeetlrcreejl
ð for /D/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl, Hemicomputer, T_F
dh for /D/:
þ for /T/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl, Hemicomputer, T_F
th for /T/:
Primary stress indicators?
Yes:
No: Aeetlrcreejl, Hemicomputer (after some thought, PSIs are a bad idea)
(They might be good if you have to mark stress like in Raitoliste, I haven't read all through the grammar so I don't know if that's true)
_________________
'We are the knights who say, "に!"' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In that case then I will go for <j> as /Z/ and <c> for /S/ and <q> for /G/.
_________________
Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Updated chart is:
š for /S/: Aeetlrcreejl, T_F
sh for /S/:
c for /S/: Hemicomputer, langover94
ž for /Z/: Aeetlrcreejl, T_F
zh for /Z/:
j for /Z/: Hemicomputer, langover94
ǧ for /G/: Aeetlrcreejl, T_F
gg for /G/:
q for /G/: Hemicomputer, langover94
ð for /D/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl, Hemicomputer, T_F
dh for /D/:
þ for /T/: langover94, Aeetlrcreejl, Hemicomputer, T_F
th for /T/:
Primary stress indicators?
Yes:
No: Aeetlrcreejl, Hemicomputer
@T_F: There are rules for stress, so the marks really aren't necessary IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So I think that we all agree that we should use the chosen orthography for /T/ and /D/ (unless eldin wants to put in a word, which I'm sure he does).
Now all we need to decide on is what to use for /S/, /Z/, and /G/.
_________________
Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| langover94 wrote: | So I think that we all agree that we should use the chosen orthography for /T/ and /D/ (unless eldin wants to put in a word, which I'm sure he does).
Now all we need to decide on is what to use for /S/, /Z/, and /G/. |
Well, even if elden votes for <th>, the majority will still swing the other way. It's quite possible, though, that David, Serali, SM, and yssida will have something to say. If they ever return, that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 650
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: Syllable Structure |
|
|
(I'll get to the other questions probably this afternoon; I have an appointment I have to leave for in 6 minutes.)
It has occurred to me that we can recover the syllable structure from the root structure.
If the root structure is
(C)V(C)(V)(C)
then the syllable structure is probably at least
(C)V({C|V})(C)
-- that is, (C)V(C)(C) with (C)V(V)(C).
I think the root structure probably should be considered
(C)(V)(C)V(C)
instead, which would mean the syllable structure should probably at least be
(C)({V|C})V(C)
-- that is, (C)(V)V(C) with (C)(C)V(C).
(With a root structure of
(C)(V)(C)(V)(C)
we might have syllable structures
(C)(V)(C)(C), (C)(V)(V)(C), and (C)(C)(V)(C) all allowed.)
_________________
Therefore love the child who holds your hand; and let your wife delight in your embrace; for this is the lot of mankind to enjoy:
But immortal life is not for men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like that syllable structure--- it certainly makes things a bit more practical.
_________________
Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| langover94 wrote: |
Now all we need to decide on is what to use for /S/, /Z/, and /G/. |
Maybe we could have a "proper" orthography (using ð, þ, š, ž, and ǧ) and a "quick" orthography (using dh, th, c, j, and q).
The proper one would be used for official translations and lexicons, and the quick would be used for just talking to eachother. Of course, you could also choose to use the proper form in conversation if you wanted to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeetlrcreejl
Joined: 08 Jun 2007
Posts: 583
Location: Over yonder
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Like Arabic Chat Alphabet?
_________________
Tiedämme missä asut.
Tamaqqut qantib.
Selæm ùthakyvl.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 650
Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: Re: Lang info |
|
|
Forgive me, all internets were down yesterday, and I didn't get back to them day before yesterday. So here I am, today.
| Hemicomputer wrote: | How's this for an orthography?
/p b m n f v t d T D s z S Z k g x G/ <p b m n f v t d th dh s z c j k g x ǧ>
/i { u Q/ <i a u o>
maybe <þ> for /T/?
maybe <ð> for /D/?
maybe <sh> or <š> for /S/?
maybe <zh> or <ž> for /Z/?
maybe <gg> or <q> for /G/?
Just some suggestions so that we don't have to type all our translations in X-SAMPA. |
(1) This is a romanization, not an orthography. The orthography is the language's own native script; that is, the conscript that David and Serali are coming up with. The romanization is how we'd write it in the typefaces used in most Western European languages (and lots of Central European languages, too) "so that we don't have to type all our translations in X-SAMPA".
(2) It's important for the romanization not to use letters any of our major contributors can't see. I can't see the < ǧ > you recommend to denote the / G / sound. (I don't know whether I count as a major contributor.)
(2a) It's also important not to use letters that can't be seen by any large-enough minority of even our occasional lurkers. Since only a few of us are actually contributing to the thread at the moment, possibly "two guys" might be a large-enough minority, at least at the moment.
(3) It may be worthwhile to make sure there's a way for those of us who can't type some of the letters to be able to still type a romanizaton. I, for instance, can't type those diacritics; <þ> for /T/, <ð> for /D/, <š> for /S/, <ž> for /Z/ are things I can't type, (though I can read them and can copy them).
I think that it could be we'd want to adopt two romanizations; a no-diacritic romanization that made sure everyone could type it (by accepting digraphs such as <th> for /T/, <dh> for /D/, <sh> for /S/, and <zh> for /Z/; and a no-digraph romanization that had one grapheme per phoneme, using such things as <þ> for /T/, <ð> for /D/, <š> for /S/, <ž> for /Z/, which I actually prefer to read, but just can't type.
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | Should we have marks for stress? If so, what? á? à? â? ä? Personally, my vote goes to the Cîrcûmflêx. |
Well, if we're going to have stress rules, I don't know that we need a way to mark stress; it should be possible to figure it out from the word itself.
But if there are going to be many pairs of words that differ only by where the stress is, then we probably do need to have some way to indicate it, especially if it often happens in writing that the reader can't tell which word is which by the rest of the phrase or clause.
(For instance, in English, the pair "OBject" and "obJECT" are not the same part-of-speech; so if the letter-sequence <object> occurs where a noun could be but a verb couldn't be, it must mean the noun "OBject", while if it occurs where a verb could be but a noun coudn't be, it must be the verb "obJECT". So there's no need to mark stress in English writing; the times when it would make a difference to the meaning that a reader can't figure out from context are few and far between.)
Are we able to say, at the moment, whether, by putting together various roots, prefixes, and suffixes, we might come up with two different words that have exactly the same sequences of phonemes, differing only in how stress is distributed? If that's rare, or if it rarely happens without them being so different that they aren't even the same part-of-speech, then we (probably) don't need a way to write stress in.
OTOH, if we do need a way to write stress in, then I imagine some kind of diacritic is the way to go; it's just that I, personally, am going to have a hard time writing it. (I'll have no trouble reading it.)
| langover94 wrote: | | I like the idea of using the thorn and the other thing for /D/ (IDK what its called). |
It's called an "eth". This is the voiced version of the thorn (which is unvoiced).
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | Personally I like <q> for /G/, as <gg> could get confusing if one of our word structures ends up allowing for double consonants. |
To me that makes sense.
| Hemicomputer wrote: | | Maybe we could have a "proper" orthography (using ð, þ, š, ž, and ǧ) and a "quick" orthography (using dh, th, c, j, and q). The proper one would be used for official translations and lexicons, and the quick would be used for just talking to eachother. Of course, you could also choose to use the proper form in conversation if you wanted to. |
I agree with this, except that I don't like ǧ for anything, since I can't read it (it just looks like a box to me).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's my vote:
"Formal"
š for /S/
ž for /Z/:
q for /G/:
ð for /D/:
þ for /T/:
"Informal":
c for /S/:
j for /Z/:
q for /G/:
dh for /D/:
th for /T/:
Primary stress indicators?
Provisionally "No" (except in texts to teach children to read or foreigners to speak/understand the language).
Stress rules:
One (or two) primary stress(es) per word;
Primary stress always on first syllable of root
(Another primary stress on last syllable of root if root is long enough.)
Otherwise; alternate stressed with unstressed, making sure no two stressed syllables occur consecutively in the same word. (For instance can't have a secondary-stressed syllable right next to (just before or just after) a primary-stressed syllable.)
First syllable of word should be secondary-stressed if it doesn't violate above rules.
Last syllable of word should be secondary-stressed if it doesn't violate above rules.
If word is long enough to have other secondary-stressed syllables, distribute them according to above rules.
_________________
Therefore love the child who holds your hand; and let your wife delight in your embrace; for this is the lot of mankind to enjoy:
But immortal life is not for men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hemicomputer
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 297
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: Lang info |
|
|
| eldin raigmore wrote: |
(1) This is a romanization, not an orthography. The orthography is the language's own native script; that is, the conscript that David and Serali are coming up with. The romanization is how we'd write it in the typefaces used in most Western European languages (and lots of Central European languages, too) "so that we don't have to type all our translations in X-SAMPA". |
I always seem to say the wrong one. I know "romanization" is correct, but it's just too many syllables.
| eldin raigmore wrote: |
I think that it could be we'd want to adopt two romanizations; a no-diacritic romanization that made sure everyone could type it (by accepting digraphs such as <th> for /T/, <dh> for /D/, <sh> for /S/, and <zh> for /Z/; and a no-digraph romanization that had one grapheme per phoneme, using such things as <þ> for /T/, <ð> for /D/, <š> for /S/, <ž> for /Z/, which I actually prefer to read, but just can't type. |
Yes! Exactly what I was getting at, except you explain it better.
| eldin raigmore wrote: | | Well, if we're going to have stress rules, I don't know that we need a way to mark stress; it should be possible to figure it out from the word itself. |
Yes, that seems to be the general opinion. I suggested it before really looking at the stress rules. 
| eldin raigmore wrote: |
Primary stress indicators?
Provisionally "No" (except in texts to teach children to read or foreigners to speak/understand the language). |
Well, if we use them for that purpose then we're still going to decide on what to use. I change my vote to á for primary, à for secondary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with eldin whole-heartedly. Also with Hemicomputer on the Formal/Informal system. I like eldin's romanization scheme, as well.
_________________
Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
