Print

Print


Sort of. Inspired by Chinese, and while taking a night-school course in
American Sign Language, as I learned each new sign I designed a "glyph" for
that word. That was in the days before computers so my dictionary was kept
of file cards. I eventually had about 2,000 glyphs and was fluent enough
that I could take class notes in other classes using my writing system.
Sadly, the dictionary file cards were lost in a house fire long ago in a
galaxy far, far away. I have tried from time to time to reconstruct the
writing system, but never got very far with it.

--gary

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:09 PM Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Since the mailing list rejects images, here's a dropbox link
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/7rm0fy200hzw9t7/anything%20handwriting.jpg?dl=0>
>
> to a picture of a word from some notes on my desk right now that's
> pretty representative.
>
> On 2019/05/20 13:42, Daniel Bensen wrote:
> > I would live to see roman letter kuzushi.
> >
> > On Mon, May 20, 2019, 9:31 PM Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, I very much have an eccentric style. It's not (mostly) a conscious
> >> creation, but it does seem to have come from the same time as when I
> >> started getting interested in Tolkien and learning the tengwar (sixth
> >> grade or so), just before I learned about linguistics and conlanging. In
> >> part, it's optimised for speed (so things like <b d> are one spiral
> >> stroke); in part, I've somewhat accidentally adopted capital forms for
> >> lowercase as well (<R> shrunk is my <r>, <N> shrunk is my <n>) and two
> >> forms from Greek (<α> for <a> and <τ> for <t>; I had some Greek in
> >> school around that time); in part, it's got some extra flourishes (<h>
> >> and <r> (R) can extend down beyond the baseline; <n> (N) used to keep
> >> going well above the x-height and at times turn sharply backwards
> >> again). As far as I remember, only the flourishes were a conscious
> >> alteration of whatever my more conventional handwriting had been before;
> >> everything else just sort of happened, though all within about a year or
> >> two.
> >>
> >> A lot of the visual distinctiveness, though, comes from the ways in
> >> which I fail to hit my mental target shape. I try to write very quickly,
> >> since I find it really very annoying when I have to pause a sentence in
> >> my mind to let my hand catch up; thus, strokes start to blur together
> >> and amalgamate - it ends up sort of like a (less extreme) example of
> >> what Latin letters might look like as kuzushiji
> >> <http://naruhodo.weebly.com/blog/introduction-to-kuzushiji>. The
> >> clearest example is how oftentimes <ing> comes out as just a squiggle
> >> with a downward hook on the end; in context, it's clear that that's a
> >> simplification of <ing> since it comes at the end of a less streamlined
> >> verb root. It's hard to describe much of how that actually works out,
> >> though, since I myself am largely unaware of exactly how I go about
> >> missing my mental targets - I am, after all, still attempting to hit
> them!
> >>
> >> In fact, I've tried to take a few of my more deviant missed letter forms
> >> and make what you've called a 'conhandwriting' out of them, and I end up
> >> with very odd results. In effect, I'm setting up a new mental target
> >> based on failed attempts to hit the old target - and then I just fail to
> >> hit that new target for the same reasons I missed the old one, and I end
> >> up with something even more altered and often more streamlined and thus
> >> harder to read. My handwriting looks the way it does because I fail to
> >> hit my mental targets - so setting up the way I write now as the actual
> >> target results in me producing something that no longer looks like the
> >> way I write now. You could very well make a Latin script hand where my
> >> target-missing forms were the canonical forms (and I've thought of
> >> making a font of such a thing); but if I were to write it well, I'd have
> >> to alter my approach to handwriting itself.
> >>
> >> (Still, though, my Japanese handwriting seems to lack the particular
> >> flavour my Roman-letter handwriting has, even though presumably I'm
> >> still missing targets in similar ways. I suspect it's a mix of the fact
> >> that some of my Roman-letter handwriting does involve altered targets
> >> and the fact that both kana and kanji are structured very differently
> >> than Roman letters when it comes to stroke directionality and ordering.
> >> I've tried to do Western-style calligraphy with kana, and it requires a
> >> lot of adaptation, since kana have several stroke shapes that just don't
> >> occur in Roman letters. I guess I need to learn how actual kuzushiji
> >> work and try to miss my targets the Japanese way!)
> >>
> >> On 2019/05/20 12:43, Kevin Walker wrote:
> >>> Do any of you have a more-eccentric-than-usual style of handwriting?  A
> >>> rationale behind it?  Perhaps used in youth only?  Speaking here not so
> >>> much of full-on conscripts as personal ways of transcribing your L1,
> used
> >>> in place of the regularly in place of the standard, e.g., I can't do
> >>> cursive, but I try to turn every sound into a single stroke of the pen,
> >>> including digraphs, usually by turning h's into vertical strokes
> attached
> >>> to the rightmost point of the letter.
> >>>
> >>> I know that in my case some of the first ways I was creative about
> >> language
> >>> was in my own handwriting.  I definitely know of people who took pride
> in
> >>> weird shorthands but weren't to the best of my knowledge conlangers.  I
> >>> assume therefore that it's the same for at least some of us, but also
> >>> perhaps not something we think of as conlanging proper.  I also suspect
> >> it
> >>> is not so monumental a task that a starting conlanger cannot have a
> >> result
> >>> of which they will remain pretty proud.  So do you have any
> >> conhandwritings
> >>> of which you are proud?  Ashamed?
>