Print

Print


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
between.

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

matt


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
>