Twin Aster

[TomHChappell]

I do not understand the two-capital-letter boldface labels you give to your “series”.
(Some are three-capital-letters. Some are one capital letter. Some are one uppercase + one lowercase letter.)
Not all of them correspond to notes in the white-on-black table in your signature.
So I’m not sure I understand even those!
…
What do your series’s labels mean?
Or, maybe, what do you mean by “series”?
….
Thanks!
This seems very interesting to me, even though I understand less of it that than what I don’t understand!

[bradrn]

I do not understand the two-capital-letter boldface labels you give to your “series”.
(Some are three-capital-letters. Some are one capital letter. Some are one uppercase + one lowercase letter.)
Not all of them correspond to notes in the white-on-black table in your signature.
So I’m not sure I understand even those!
…
What do your series’s labels mean?
Or, maybe, what do you mean by “series”?

IIRC these are phonetic series, so I believe they’re just phonemes: the ‘RG series’ would be used in words containing ⟨rg⟩, the ‘QG series’ in words containing ⟨qg⟩, and so on.

[TomHChappell]

…

IIRC these are phonetic series, so I believe they’re just phonemes: the ‘RG series’ would be used in words containing ⟨rg⟩, the ‘QG series’ in words containing ⟨qg⟩, and so on.

Thanks! I’ll ask Twin Aster to confirm.

[Man in Space]

…

IIRC these are phonetic series, so I believe they’re just phonemes: the ‘RG series’ would be used in words containing ⟨rg⟩, the ‘QG series’ in words containing ⟨qg⟩, and so on.

Thanks! I’ll ask Twin Aster to confirm.

bradrn is correct. Those are the initials for the series of glyphs—CC has seven vowels listed in the customary order /a ɛ ə ɔ i ɨ u/.

[Man in Space]

MV series



BV series



NV series

[Man in Space]

DV series



QV series



JV series



CV series



GV series



All the two-consonant onsets are accounted for; only the triconsonantal onsets are left. We're in the home stretch now.

[Man in Space]

RDV series



RDG series



XT series



CTR series



CRN series



CTG series



And there we have it. I might make alternative/multiple phonetic radicals for some of these later, but other than that…here we are.

[bradrn]

In the form in which it was principally promulgated back in the day, Caber logograms (toqitŭvadar¹ or qanvan²) were originally made using a small brush (ŭmŭ means both 'paint' and 'write'); however, they originally designed from scoring on wood (because druids, after all). They weren't the only ones to discover writing³, but they were the first, around the XXI C. BC.

Returning to this point: I rediscovered my old calligraphy brush. It’s a very bad one (complete with some kind of squeezy internal paint source that smells really terrible for some reason), and on top of that I’m awful at brush calligraphy, but I’ve at least proven to my own satisfaction that bottom-to-top writing is practical with a brush. The shapes of these radicals are rather intricate, but after a few goes I at least managed to write this one successfully.

[Raholeun]

Very much digging your radicals, Man in Space. At this point, would you be able to put together a couple of sentences using them?

[Man in Space]

I’ve at least proven to my own satisfaction that bottom-to-top writing is practical with a brush. The shapes of these radicals are rather intricate, but after a few goes I at least managed to write this one successfully.

Very much digging your radicals, Man in Space.

Thank you both!

At this point, would you be able to put together a couple of sentences using them?

Give me a little time—I have tomorrow off work for a doctor's appointment so that should give me the free time to do some.

[Man in Space]

LEFT TO RIGHT: ctactus 'find, come across s.t.', xnŭvir 'curious', rsugvŭd 'unusual, out-of-the-ordinary', vtŭgir 'detail, fact, piece of information, minutiae', pagrdax 'to examine, to "go over s.t. with a fine-tooth comb", to study s.t. intensely, to review; to revise', rŭvnŏ 'to uncover, to dig s.t. up, to unearth', xnanx 'grave marker, tombstone'

[Travis B.]

Nice work!

[Man in Space]

Nice work!

Thank you!

Fractions down to the fifth are handled with native logograms (thirds, quarters [incl. one-half], fifths):

[bradrn]

Nice work!

Thank you!

Fractions down to the fifth are handled with native logograms (thirds, quarters [incl. one-half], fifths):

It feels to me like this would get really impractical, really quickly… if it must be done like this, I suggest varying the fill lines a bit more than in this picture.

[Travis B.]

Nice work!

Thank you!

Fractions down to the fifth are handled with native logograms (thirds, quarters [incl. one-half], fifths):

It feels to me like this would get really impractical, really quickly… if it must be done like this, I suggest varying the fill lines a bit more than in this picture.

I agree that if you go this route you should vary the fill lines to make it more obvious what the fractions are than just eyeballing the proportion of the fraction, which is likely to be rather fallible.

[Man in Space]

Thank you!

Fractions down to the fifth are handled with native logograms (thirds, quarters [incl. one-half], fifths):

It feels to me like this would get really impractical, really quickly… if it must be done like this, I suggest varying the fill lines a bit more than in this picture.

I agree that if you go this route you should vary the fill lines to make it more obvious what the fractions are than just eyeballing the proportion of the fraction, which is likely to be rather fallible.

I was thinking about that on the way to the doctor's office this afternoon. How about rotating the shape based on the denominator? 1/2 stays as it is but as for the rest (please pardon the imgur watermark, I did this really quick)…

Thirds:


Quarters:


Fifths:


Also:

[keenir]

I agree that if you go this route you should vary the fill lines to make it more obvious what the fractions are than just eyeballing the proportion of the fraction, which is likely to be rather fallible.

I was thinking about that on the way to the doctor's office this afternoon. How about rotating the shape based on the denominator? 1/2 stays as it is but as for the rest (please pardon the imgur watermark, I did this really quick)…

Thirds:


Quarters:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/jUEExfH.png?1[/img

maybe alternate them...one is less likely to confuse 1/2 with 1/4 (or 1/3 and 1/5), while both 1/3 and 1/4 are distinct because one is horizontal and one is vertical (ditto 1/4 and 1/5)

just a thought.

[bradrn]

Another thought: for quarter fractions, why not divide it into squares rather than rectangles? It’s easy to chop up a big square into four little squares, less so to estimate the width of a skinny rectangle with a specific aspect ratio.

[Man in Space]

Another thought: for quarter fractions, why not divide it into squares rather than rectangles? It’s easy to chop up a big square into four little squares, less so to estimate the width of a skinny rectangle with a specific aspect ratio.

That's not a bad idea, though there's a few other things before revisiting that in the queue. Such as…

A Tale of Two Graphemes, and how it gives some amusing backstory, inspiration, and new features to a conlang

CC has a delocative verbalizer -nme (what the delocative does is it turns a noun with some sort of spatial connotation into a verb that exemplifies some characteristic of the location, for instance an action that takes place at or on something). Instead of contriving some drawing of an abstract function, they simply used a soundalike, specifically nve 'grounds (e.g. coffee); dregs, remains, ashes'. This term has its own primitive logograph, 1141 NVE:



Of note is that this glyph is basically position-locked to the baseline. This is intentional; the grid (reçuqu 'the weaving' < reçu 'weave, twist, plait' + -qV ILLIMIT¹) has a number of fixed positions of varying proportion and y-coördinate is sometimes a critical component of being the distinctive contrast.

Now, 0542 BAQAM 'forehead' looks like this:



Kinda simple, but note how the down-strikes also fit the design of 1141 NVE. This is relevant because of the existence of the verb aqamanme 'to blink'. Strictly speaking, this is what you might've expected it to look like:



But this particular combination was of enough frequency and/or importance that it would up creating a fused glyph, AQAMANME:



Moby-Dictionary; or, Classificatory Terminology

There's a number of terms to describe logograms (I sadly only have English equivalents at the moment):

• By component:
  1. Character: Gestalt phonosemantic element.
  2. Glyph: Logogram (full phono-semantic sign) proper.
  3. Sign: The core of the design of the glyph; considerably overlaps the semantic (q.v.), but the sign is essentially the base to which the radicals are applied, i.e. all semantics are signs but not all signs are semantics (or at least not strictly so).
  4. Phonetic: The phonetic portion of the glyph, signifying the onset and nucleus of the initial.
  5. Semantic: The informational-content portion of the glyph.
• By orientation:
  1. True: Basic form of a glyph (i.e., in standard orientation).
  2. Inverse: Inverted form of a glyph, sometimes used to form new semantic components.
  3. Dexter: Glyph form rotated by 90º (or, if you prefer, ^π/₂ rad) clockwise.
  4. Sinister: Glyph form rotated 90º/^π/₂ rad counterclockwise.
• By affected face(s) of the glyph:
  1. L: The left side.
  2. R: The right side.
  3. LR: Both the left and right sides.
  4. B: The base or bottom side.
  5. T: The top of the glyph space.
  6. BT: Both the bottom and top of the glyph.
• By aspect ratio of the semantic:
  1. Full: Form of a glyph when no radicals are present.
  2. Reduced: General form of a glyph when a single radical is present.
  3. Doubly reduced: Slightly squatter form (as compared to the reduced form) used when aesthetic or technical concerns would arise vis-à-vis the grid.
  4. Complex: Form of a glyph when a dual radical is present.
  5. Doubly complex: Like doubly reduced, but for the complex.
• By composition:
  1. Atomic: Signs with no radical.
     1. Primitive: Basic phonosemantic signs—no radical, no combination with another sign.
     2. Compound: Phonosemantic signs with no radical, but relying on combinations or compounds of signs (primitive or otherwise).
  2. Sesquigraph: Signs with a radical.
     1. Monosesquigraph: Signs with a simple radical.
     2. Disesquigraph: Signs with a dual radical.
• By pairwise status of the radical:
  1. Single: A radical taking up only one rank (i.e., not the "sandwich" ones).
  2. Dual: A radical taking up one rank each on opposite sides.
• By number of strokes. Pretty basic, like n-stroke, at least thus far. I've a lot to figure out yet, like how to differentiate between total without the implication of the radical and the total with it. The longer explanation is that when the aspect ratio of a glyph or sign changes, the background grid points do not move, and the glyph or sign must be simplified or otherwise altered in order to maintain fidelity to the grid.

So, for instance, 1238 RŬVNŎ over here:



Can be described as a true doubly BT-complex n-stroke disesquigraph.

1. What the late Gary Shannon termed the 'illimitable pattern of action'.

[Man in Space]

I am pleased to finally be able to announce that I’m scheduled to give a presentation at LCC 11 about the Caber logograms.