2013/10/14 Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>

> George Marques de Jesus <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > After a long time of frustration trying to create the font for it, I
> > finally completed Xiis, a writing system for my conlang Fóm (which is
> still
> > a draft). I have to tell that I'm not completely satisfied with it, but
> at
> > least it's possible to actually write something using the computer
> keyboard.
> >
> > I made a PDF with description and it can be found here:
> >
> Nicely put together.  I certainly see the Hangul influence in the partial
> featurality of the consonants, though in squirrelling all the distinctive
> bits away in one little corner maybe it's more like Hebrew than Hangul.

I don't really know any of Hebrew, so any resemblance is not intentional.
The idea came really from Hangul.

> The vowels and the consonants are strange in conjunction, though; they're
> drawn from rather different stylistic palettes.  I'd expect them to come to
> resemble each other more in stroke makeup through use.
> Incidentally, on the vowels, it is curious that /a~/ is written as nasal
> /3/ rather than nasal /a/ (like your Romanisation does).  Is there a
> phonological or historical reason for that?

The reason is phonological, as the sound of the nasal is not as open as
/a/, so it's closer to /3/. But now I notice that it should be described as
/3~/ and not as /a~/ as I did in the paper. I'm gonna fix that.

> Having an written null coda in every open syllable also feels rather heavy
> to me, esp. given that nearly all the consonants also contain the top of
> the box so that every sentence is basically visually hemmed in between two
> lines.  A situation ripe for a dose of dbu-medication? ;)

Without the null coda, I thought that something was missing, that's why I
added it. (and I don't know what's "dbu-medication").

> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:50:28 -0700, Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > It seems to me that terran writing systems did mostly develop from
> > pictographic elements  for record keeping--
> Well, if Hangul did -- and it seems to be one of the inspirants of Xiis --
> then it did only rather tenuously: it seems likely that the five basic
> letters /p t k s l/ had their forms adapted from 'Phags-pa, which was
> Brahmic and so can have such a development traced, but the other letters
> were pure featural invention based on these.  (Though of course Hangul was
> created in a cultural context of already-existing scripts that dỳd develop
> this way.)
> > once "organized" religions
> > and governments developed, and it was necessary for the priests/officials
> > to know how much stuff they had. Or from pictographs of objects like
> > carts, vases/amphorae, grains, birds, mountains, water etc...  cf.
> > Egyptian hieroglyphs and some Chinese characters. Then, IIRC, some of the
> > characters were chosen for their phonetic value (e.g.I think the Egyptian
> > character for "house" was _per_ or some such,
> Nitpick mode on: one oughta cite the Egyptian as _pr_.  The "e" is this
> European scholarly convention for reading the transcription aloud that
> doesn't correspond to anything in the Egyptian vocalism.
> > and that became the letter
> > "p" when writing out names.
> /b/ actually, after the Semitic *bayt- 'house'.  The creators of the
> proto-Sinaitic script lifted the forms of their letters from Egyptian but
> gave them new Semitic acrophonic values, unrelated to the Egyptian ones.
> > Semitic/Hebrew aleph is supposed to represent
> > an ox's head, and that image even affected the Indic-- later Devanagari--
> > letter for "a".
> Alex

George Marques