Page 1 of 1

Advice for Omyatloko

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:58 pm
by masako
I would like some advice, please. I have 351 glyphs but I know some them will rarely be used, and I realize I lack glyphs for words that are more common. So, I've been mapping my glyphs to the Kyōiku kanji in an effort to get basic, common words but I think I may be missing the mark.

Should I look for a list of common Hanzi/Kanji/Kanja or use some other guidepost? I had thought of using common Mayan glyphs or Egyptian hieroglyphs, but the resources are usually not very good. My goal is to have about 500 glyphs for fairly common words.

Any and all help is appreciated.

Re: Advice for Omyatloko

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:30 am
by Salmoneus
I can't help on resources, but if you're only having 500 glyphs, you'd be looking at a really tiny number of words - 'common words' are far more numerous than we tend to assume. On the project I'm working on at the moment, I've got probably over 300 words and I haven't strayed far away from "nouns for common animals, geographical features and tools".

Well, just look how selective Swadesh had to be to make a 200-item list...

EDIT: you could start with Swadesh, Leipzig-Jakarta, Calmsea, etc, and then interpolate a couple of related common words for each entry.

Re: Advice for Omyatloko

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:02 pm
by masako
Salmoneus wrote: Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:30 am I can't help on resources...
Well, you did, because;
Salmoneus wrote: Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:30 am EDIT: you could start with Swadesh, Leipzig-Jakarta, Calmsea, etc, and then interpolate a couple of related common words for each entry.
led to me finding this: https://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/60549

Cheers.

Re: Advice for Omyatloko

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:59 pm
by xxx
In my opinion, we must avoid the stereotyped list of basic words ...
Especially if you use the basic words to produce compound words ...
Better use yours, it does not matter that there are holes and particular compositions, that's how languages are built and that's what makes them special ...
Accident of their history did what they are, one can produce similarly:
  • by the fortuity of your translations,
  • by using the internal resources thus produced,
  • by fleeing the bilingual lists and by privileging a monolingual dictionary,
  • not to import what makes the soul of a language, its primary lexicon, and the ingenuity of its use and the particular lexical fields it produced with ...
Except for wanting to do a relex, I'd avoid importing a basic lexicon structure ...