it seems rather like an abugida (alphasyllabary) - vowels and consonants are
not graphically interchangeable, just as you've got consonants on the top
and vowels on the bottom.  i would not call it a full-fledged alphabet,
owing to this lack of interchangeability.  in the latin *alphabet*, for
example, WWKLMDRRRTSN and IEIIIOUOUYA are both possible words in some albeit
peculiar language; however, without a consonant (or null) on the top and
vowel on the bottom in each syllable cluster, your script wouldn't even make
sense, if i understand it correctly.  on the other hand,

> a completely different symbol for each possible syllable
is indeed a criterion for true syllabaries.  so methinks you're somewhere in

that said, cool script.  what does the text at the bottom say, or just


On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Not to be excessively picky, but this is actually an alphabet, not a
> > syllabary.  A cool looking alphabet, granted, but a syllabary has a
> > completely different symbol for each possible syllable.
> >
> > It reminds me of the Korean alphabet, actually.
> >
> It was sort of inspired by Hangul.
> As to whether it is or is not a syllabary, well, I guess that's open
> to interpretation.
> Suppose we just call it a syllalphabetary.
> --gary