Print

Print


 I am interested also. Should be quite fun.

On Thursday, September 18, 2014, Pete Bleackley <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> By "sample script" I meant "sample text"
>
> Pete Bleackley
> The Fantastical Devices of Pete The Mad Scientist -
> http://fantasticaldevices.blogspot.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Bleackley <[log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>
> To: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>
> Sent: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 8:08
> Subject: Re: idea: script relay
>
> I'm planning to use Stage 4 as the language I adapt the script for. Stage
> 4 is at a very early stage of development yet, so I won't be able to do a
> sample script. However, it's got some quite interesting phonological
> features that should pose a challenge to adapting what came before.
>
> Pete Bleackley
> The Fantastical Devices of Pete The Mad Scientist -
> http://fantasticaldevices.blogspot.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>
> To: [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>
> Sent: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 1:15
> Subject: Re: idea: script relay
>
> Great to see all the interest.  I've cooked up a script which should be
> good to use as the starting point for a relay, fairly primitive and without
> toooo many tricks of its own to start with.  I've just spent a good few
> hours vectorising up its glyphs; hopefully the rest of the documenting goes
> quickly.
>
> On the question of transferring images: yet another solution, more than a
> little cumbrous but hopefully not technologically out of anyone's reach,
> would be to create an album on http://pics.conlang.org/main.php with
> restricted permissions.  Perhaps it won't come to that, we have lots of
> solutions by now.
>
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:48:39 -0400, W Biggs <[log in to unmask]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >As am I. Does it have to be a conscript or can it be an obscure natscript?
>
> It has to be a daughter of the script the person before you hands you;
> sorry if I wasn't clear.
> I was intending the mutation as the relay progresses not (necessarily!) to
> arise from difficulty in puzzling out the previous person's documentation
> (although fair play if this happens), but rather from the mismatches
> between each language and the next, plus evolutionary artistic licence.
>
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:58:02 +0200, James Kane <[log in to unmask]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >I think it makes sense to be able to use whichever medium to make the
> conscript as some people can make beautiful fonts on a computer and others
> (like myself despite trying) can't.
>
> Mhmm.  I can't really imagine imposing a condition other than "do what's
> convenient for you, as long as it's not totally unlikely that people will
> be able to read the result".
>
> >It also makes sense to figure which medium the actual con people are
> using, as writing on clay and writing on palm leaves would produce
> different results.
>
> Indeed.
>
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:55:21 +0200, BPJ <[log in to unmask] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> >This is an awesome idea, but I'm really a bit concerned about the
> >production of graphics. Cerebral palsy and WYSIWYG on-screen
> >drawing really don't go well together so my remaining options
> >would be scanning of hand-drawn signs which certes would not be
> >pretty or MetaPost which potentially would take forever.
>
> (I hope it's not insensitive to ask) how not pretty are we talking?
>
> >Also would influence from an existing script for a language count
> >as cheating?
>
> My answer would be "use your discretion; don't go overboard".  Certainly
> influences happen in the world, like Coptic borrowing the letters it
> couldn't find in Greek from hieratic, and I wouldn't want to put my foot
> down on that sort of thing.  But saying "these 26 letters are identified
> with A..Z and the language is now written as it is in Roman" would be No
> Fun.
>
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:18:31 +0100, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >An adaptation of a script depends on the adapter's understanding of the
> source. On the signans side, there is potentially the distinction between
> the graphemes and the allographs, and on the signatum side there is the
> question of how to characterize the signatum -- phoneme? allophone?
> something else?
> >
> >But in the relay, the adapter's understanding of the source is going to
> be determined by the sophistication of the info they receive from the
> previous. This means a main determinant of the course the relay takes is
> the sophistication of the description sent on. I wonder if this dimension
> of variation could be reduced by standardizing what is sent on -- but I
> can't yet think of what would be a viable minimum amount of info.
>
> Do you think the minimum is the correct place to standardise, or merely
> the only viable place?  I guess we'd really like to standardise at the
> maximum, were that possible.
>
> I'm not sure whether standardising would give a more or a less pleasing
> result on the whole.  Certainly, for any standardising process, there are
> fun things one might do which it'll cut out -- example off the top of my
> head, if we didn't standardise alphabetical order data then there'd be no
> room for re-sortings like Arabic had, passing from the Phoenecian order to
> the order by rasm, and they're fun.
>
> Mach makes the case for less:
>
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:54:43 -0400, J. 'Mach' Wust <
> [log in to unmask] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >Wouldn't the disparity of descriptions add to the quirks? There must
> >be numerous ANADEW where a scripts were adapted in quirky ways
> >because the adapters did not fully understand the original. The most
> >extreme examples may be the likes of Sequoyah who arguably adapted
> >the Latin script without having the slightest clue how it worked.
>
> but I'm not sure: given a sufficiently hard-to-understand description, the
> resulting script is probably going to be simpler than the source, which is
> probably less interesting from the outside even if fluent users of the
> source script would be amused that their letter for weak-/_ju_H/ has been
> repurposed as /q/.  On the first hand, "not fully understanding the
> original" is surely going to happen more if participants have the task of
> inferring all the rules from a sample, rather than being handed them.
>
> back to And:
> >How about, say, we start with an IPA transcription of a text in random
> language X in conscript Y, and then the next turn takes this as a basis for
> adapting the script to their conlang, and adapts the text to the phonology
> of their conlang, writes out the text in the new version of the script, and
> sends it and an IPA transcription of the new version of the text onwards? I
> suppose a snag with that is that a text that is not onerously long will
> likely not include all relevant ingredients of the script.
>
> Yes; and on top of that, adapting the same text over and over will
> converge towards bad coverage of phonological space.  I like the idea of
> asking for sample texts, but I'd give people choice: best if they manage to
> concoct one that exhibits all or most ingredients; if not, whatever text is
> to hand would do.  (Myself I'm lazy and mean to re-use a text from a
> translation relay or the like.)
>
> Alex
>