Print

Print


On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Dana Nutter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> As for the sample text, it's just random syllables, although I've also
>> had fun writing English with the syllabary. I have to take a great
>> deal of poetic license with the words to make it work, however. And a
>> null vowel helped as well so I could end words with a consonant. DAGψ
>> could be "dog" or "tag" or "dock" or maybe even "talk". Reading
>> English would rely heavily on context to decide which word was meant.
>
> I toyed with the idea of a Roman-based orthography that was more of an
> abjad than an abugida since vowel marking wasn't really required.
> There was no inherent vowel but vowels were marked with diacritics on
> the consonants, and the letter O (now that I rethink it, a better
> choice might be <I>) was used as a empty placeholder for the
> diacritics for words that start with a vowel.  One benefit was the
> ability to get rid of digraphs because the vowel letters could be
> reassigned as consonants.

I played with something similar once, except vowel letters were used
for vowels in stressed syllables, where they are most salient. I used
<x> as a placeholder but was never happy with it. I think maybe
dotless <i> would be better (especially since the single dot diacritic
already acted as the vowel mark for /I/).