Print

Print


Another question this brought to mind: in łaá siri, proper nouns are often
discernable because they are uninflected noun roots, and if they refer to a
person, usually occur with an honorific of some form. In others' conlangs,
are names and proper nouns unique in some way that makes them apparent in a
text (besides capitalization)?
On Jun 26, 2013 9:38 AM, "Padraic Brown" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> > From: George Corley
>
> > The question is, do you keep to the conventions in order to make the
> > readers more comfortable, or do you break them for your own satisfaction.
> > The degree to which it impedes readability isn't that important, you
> still
> > have a choice, and there are reasons to make either choice. As I have
> said
> > before, by putting a romanization to a conlang that is not "natively"
> > written in the Roman alphabet, you are already imposing alien conventions
> > on it. There is therefore no reason do dismiss the graphical conventions
> of
> > the Roman alphabet other than aesthetic. And since there is no arguing
> > taste, then we really should not be freaking arguing over which choice is
> > better.
>
> I agreed earlier that, yes, the mere act of writing a conlang in a
> non-native
> script is a form of alien imposition, and indeed it may well be one of many
> such impositions. But on rethinking, it's really not an imposition on the
> language itself in any way shape or form. Just because I choose to write
> Talarian texts here in a romanisation scheme -- and really, what
> alternative
> do I have?? -- doesn't change anything whatsoever about the language or
> its script. The only thing the romanisation does for a conlang is to
> facilitate
> discussion: it's easy for me to write in romanised conlang, it's easier for
> you to read, it's easier for us to talk about it than if I just say "look
> here:
> http://bethisad.com/world/currency/currency.htm and have fun sorting out
> all
> the funny writing!"
>
>
> > From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > It's this informal feel that I wanted to capture when I decided that
> > Tatari Faran's romanization will be all lowercase. The san faran are the
> > easy-going type, and don't really care too much about such nitpicky
> > details, and I thought it would be fitting to convey this in the
> > romanization of their language.
>
> And therein lies the only correct answer to the whole question of to
> capitalise or to not capitalise a conlang's romanisation, namely, we do
> that which we as individuals decide is best for the conlang at hand and
> for the Purpose to which we set the transliteration scheme. You choose
> noncapitalisation because you feel that in some way it captures the
> informality of the speakers of the conlang. I choose noncapitalisation
> (at times) to emulate the native script's caselessness. Others have said
> that they choose capitalisation for familiarity sake and for ease of
> reading.
> All these are valid reasons for the choices we make.
>
> >>  If you want to really mess things up, you could remove all punctuation
> >>  as well. THAT would affect readability for me. I think the punctuation
> >>  is more important in this respect than capitalization, so I don't know
> >>  why this is such a huge gripe! Convention is only convention, it
> >>  doesn't mean it's how everything needs to be done.
> > [...]
> >
> > Punctuation is definitely more important than capitalization.
>
> And yet the ancients got along pretty well with neither. Anyone who works
> with ancient mss stìll has to deal with pages of writing that may or may
> not
> be capitalised, have punctuation or even spacing between words. It didn't
> seem to bother the ancients, and I guess one gets used to it!
>
> > And while capitalization is only convention, I'd argue that for
> > *English*, it's preferable.
>
> Well, for *English* (or indeed French or German etc), it's the Rules. It's
> part
> that set of conventions by which we all agree to sensibly communicate with
> each other. As with any rule, it can be bent, but the more we bend these
> rules, the harder it is to effectively communicate.
>
> > But when it comes to *conlangs*, I think
> > it's needlessly nitpicky to insist on English-style capitalization. I
> > mean, even German uses its own capitalization conventions, and it also
> > uses the Latin script, so why the insistence on English-centric bias?
>
> Indeed. This is why I first asked "what counts as traditional" way back
> when the discussion first started. Whose rules are we supposed to use,
> and why do we even need to follow ány real language's rules when it
> comes to romanising a conlang?
>
> > Reading *any* foreign language (conlang or not) requires some initial
> > effort to learn the writing anyway, be it romanization or native script.
>
> Yes. And I think this is really why we all have chosen the former here
> on list. Sure, we sometimes offer links to native script images and we
> might send Christmas cards using native script, but for the most part
> our experience of reading each others' languages is in romanisation.
> We do it that way to reduce the amount of effort required of the
> other person to get what we're doing.
>
> > One can hardly expect to fairly evaluate a conlang if one is unwilling
> > to put the effort into learning the conventions the author chose to
> > adopt.  Nitpicking on capitalization conventions in lieu of actually
> > learning how the conlang works seems to me to be a case of straining out
> > the gnat and swallowing the camel.
>
> :)
>
> Padraic
>
> > T
>