On 15 October 2012 05:17, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Meant to send this onlist!  But that fills my quota for today.
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:14:51 -0400, neo gu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >AFMCL, this is a transliteration of a not-yet-developed native
> orthography, using 18 letters.
> This is delightful!  Essentially no-one designs native alphabetic
> orthographies to have any non-transparentness (even Maggel was written
> in the local Roman alphabet!)

Actually, Maggel is written in its own alphabet, which happens to be a
descendant of the Uncial script that also resulted in the Gaelic type, and
thus is similar to it, and yet different enough that it can be considered a
separate alphabet rather than a form of the Roman alphabet (in any case,
that's what I advise you to say in the presence of Maggel speakers, at
least if you value your fingers! ;) ). Some of the main differences is that
the Maggel alphabet has no capital forms, special ligatures, and features
letters that mandatorily attach to the next one while others forbid it (a
bit like the Arabic script, and unlike any cursive form of the Roman
alphabet). However, it also has less letters than the Roman alphabet, so a
one-to-one transliteration in the Roman alphabet (based on the historical
origin of each Maggel letter) isn't that difficult, even though it means
that some letters get strange values (for instance the letter
transliterated as <t> never has the value [t]!).

[snip interesting description]

*sigh* I wish Maggel orthography was as easy to describe as this!
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.