Zompist Bboard Again

I find them a little too "combinatorial"...
but why not...
they are in any case very homogeneous...

Exciting work (and beautiful glyphs); I look forward to reading about it when you get the document up.

Vardelm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:43 am You, sir, are a masochist, and I applaud you for it.

Wait till I tell you that I'm doing it all in MS paint. ;) Thank you, BTW.

xxx wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:18 pm I find them a little too "combinatorial"...

That's cool. The recent dLCC had a presenter that I have much respect for. Her talk on Techniques for Script Development was very well done, and mentions selecting a "palette" of shapes for your script. That's really all I've done here.

sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 4:45 am Exciting work (and beautiful glyphs); I look forward to reading about it when you get the document up.

Thank you very much...and I too, am looking forward to the document being up. Phew.

masako wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:44 am

Vardelm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:43 am You, sir, are a masochist, and I applaud you for it.

Wait till I tell you that I'm doing it all in MS paint. Thank you, BTW.

I'm gonna crawl under my desk, curl up, & cry for a while now.

I can't see them.

These are extremely nice and I'm frankly admirative of the quantity and quality. I'd like to know a few things about the three different 'styles'.

Vijay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:07 amI can't see them.

They're here: https://i.imgur.com/ItEzNuP.png

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:46 am These are extremely nice and I'm frankly admirative of the quantity and quality.

Thank you!

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:46 am I'd like to know a few things about the three different 'styles'.

Do you have a specific questions, or just want a general description?

masako wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:02 am

Vijay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:07 amI can't see them.

They're here: https://i.imgur.com/ItEzNuP.png

Thanks!

masako wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:02 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:46 am I'd like to know a few things about the three different 'styles'.

Do you have a specific questions, or just want a general description?

A general description would be great!

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 3:44 am

masako wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:02 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:46 am I'd like to know a few things about the three different 'styles'.

Do you have a specific questions, or just want a general description?

A general description would be great!

This: https://i.imgur.com/H1KlOJP.png is what I have right now in my document, but when I get to an appropriate point, I plan on expanding and refining the descriptions.

I have been contemplating an overhaul of my lexicon and the sporadic nature of the formation of words.

I am thinking of reworking the derivation from roots. Currently, words are formed as unrelated even when they have very similar sound(s) structure(s).

What I mean:

haka - drawers; pants; trousers
hake - peel; skin; flay; shuck; shell
haki - true; real; authentic
hako - you're welcome
haku - vomit; regurgitate; throw up

So, the above sound similar, but are clearly not semantically related...

The question, in attempting to have words be more related phonetically as well as semantically, is; Do I base the roots on the barest of sounds, meaning they will need to be very broad semantically, or do I expand the root phonemic structure so as to narrow the semantic range of a given root?

Option #1: root structure, strict CVC, which would allow for things like labialization, palatalization, nasalization, etc to be used in derivatives

OR

Option #2: root structure, strict (N)C(y/w)V(N)C, which would expand the number of possible roots, but limit semantic range

Given my phonotactics and phonology, option #1 gives me ~500 possible roots, option #2 gives me ~850-1K possible roots

Can you figure out what roots you want (definitions only) so that you know how many there are, and then decide after whether you need to use method #1 or #2?

Vardelm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:25 am Can you figure out what roots you want (definitions only) so that you know how many there are, and then decide after whether you need to use method #1 or #2?

I'm sure I could, but making this choice will help that process more than the other way around because it will inform how broad the semantic range needs to be.

masako wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:46 am I'm sure I could, but making this choice will help that process more than the other way around because it will inform how broad the semantic range needs to be.

Seems like a chicken & egg problem. It might have to be an iterative process. Do a round of defining what roots exist, see how many there are, compare to what the ranges you have for the 2 methods, then revise the list to make it more broad or narrow depending on which way you go.

I'd probably decide what phonological/morphological features I want to use for derivation, based just on aesthetics, and then decide what needs to happen to the roots based on that.

Vardelm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:06 pm Seems like a chicken & egg problem.

To an extent, yeah...but, given that my lexicon currently has ~2K entries, it's very much a "which evolutionary version of the chicken" problem. I ran a poll on twitter asking the question and got results split down the middle.

Vardelm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:06 pm It might have to be an iterative process. Do a round of defining what roots exist, see how many there are, compare to what the ranges you have for the 2 methods, then revise the list to make it more broad or narrow depending on which way you go.

Yeah, because I find it difficult to decide which method to use, I am going to use both/either type of approach, all the while allowing for "free range" words so I don't drive myself crazy with reverse engineering.

So based on all of that, the schema I'm using is: (N)(C)(y/w)V(N)(C), meaning that the (single) vowel will be the only obligatory portion of the root. And allowing for various types of derivation; e.g. napa - grape >> napya - wine / nkapa - alcohol...etc

Another solid example I have:


Undecided if I will attempt to define all "pieces" of a derived word, or focus on the root and its specific derivations.

Here is a PDF about Moya. It's now older than 20 years. It's had multiple iterations, and was originally designed for a different language, but it's been around for almost 21 years.

Drop dead sexy IMO. I like the plural, accusative, negative, & gemination markers. I don't know if it's common to have symbols dedicated to morpho-syntactic features or not, but I dig it. The various brush styles.... just love. That's something I definitely want to emulate for my langs once I get to the script stage.

Also, it's a good, simple document with just enough detail. Kudos.

masako wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:52 am Here is a PDF about Moya. It's now older than 20 years. It's had multiple iterations, and was originally designed for a different language, but it's been around for almost 21 years.

wow I like the kufic style...

Vardelm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:06 am Drop dead sexy IMO.

Why, thank you, Sir.

Vardelm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:06 am I like the plural, accusative, negative, & gemination markers. I don't know if it's common to have symbols dedicated to morpho-syntactic features or not, but I dig it.

I haven't seen it myself, either. It's my attempt to add some originality to what could be 'just another conabugida'.

Vardelm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:06 am Also, it's a good, simple document with just enough detail. Kudos.

Thank you. After seeing the detail you include with your grammatical sketches, I take that as a massive compliment.

xxx wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:32 am wow I like the kufic style...

Thank you. It's not something I use often, or focus on, but it works well enough with this script, so I wanted to include it.

An updated Moya document. Now with more serif!

Also, barring hurricanes, locusts, and earth-shattering seismic events, I should have the fully revised and updated grammar up by the end of the summer, or sooner.