tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 27 18:44:03 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: idea for writing system
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: idea for writing system
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:43:36 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=00/IeubuwHDI9L2PeQBbdZN+FsLF7yE8NhbiTZ6R5jg=; b=TgyLgW+tC42yTdciHAkrhLmFoMAzy/hjeHvM1S8uvtCahaoV+s58FY9sZPnW5hYOpo 4bZZ2NVZqaz7rE9FJ1GYKWd5PLyQyHI0XzZ/lXLgqQ8KnqC5c9kK9qRqZ3oFQpiLBXsX 8C7a4gyoQiSyr4Ldg4Dso+cfqf9ukYTD6W4dU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=bQYIMImMwcxpM5mpR4pnKNv+R6ourFbnm5FDsW/uaI5tD2PZ+TXz4zvg8HK8U50Pf3 tkkfy9Xgd5REucKItv6WTNDIbpa2TZ/0i87J86fxC2+Sz3TsFKB7I8Da95PlPx/mOXMr s8RGyiipfA1zlZKYt3KdxA4e4HnsMlwpdeEvk=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Maybe if I put it like this:
We have a verb *spelt out* (t) (h) (I) (n) (k). We then have a suffix
as *one* symbol: (-ing).
This is the standard, official, accepted way to write (thinking).
We then have the *spoken* mis-pronunctiation (thinkin').
Our writing system was then *altered* to incorporate spoken "errors".
A single glyph for (-ing) *would* work.
A seperate or altered glyph would need to be introduced for (-in').
Possibly even (i)(n)(').
The *grammaticaly unofficial* suffixes in question came about *long
after* pIqaD was first written down.
~naHQun
On 7/27/08, DloraH <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was just pointing out that it wouldn't work if each suffix was represented
> by a single glyph.
> "thinkin'" breaks up that suffix and puts in another character. If -ing was
> represented by a single
> letter, how would you break it up to spell it differently?
>
>
> DloraH
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
>> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 16:23
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: idea for writing system
>>
>> -replying via mobile, no control over format-
>> A writing system wouldn't have an *official* way to convey an
>> ungrammatical aspect-at first. "Popular usage" would eventually take
>> over.
>> "Thinkin' " is ungrammatical, but replacing the "g" with "'" is the
>> proper way to write it.
>>
>> ~naHQun
>>
>> On 7/27/08, DloraH <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> I sort-of like the idea of a glyph per suffix. But it's just
>> >> so artificial.
>> >
>> > pIqaDvam vIqelta', 'ach KGT nav 181, pab Hat QIj MO. -lu'
>> mojaQ -laH mojaQ
>> > je luDuDlu' 'ej chen
>> > -luH -la' ghap. mojaQ 'oSchugh wa' Degh, chay' ghItlh?
>> >
>> >
>> > I had thought of this concept once, but in KGT p181 MO explains the
>> > ungrammatical combination of
>> > -lu' and -laH into -luH or -la'. If it was a glyph per
>> suffix, how would
>> > they express this?
>> >
>> >
>> > DloraH
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508314975
>> http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/purpleelaphants/
>> http://www.twitter.com/roneyii
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/MichaelRoneyJr
>>
>> Modern playwrights have become obsessed with writing human
>> interpretations of alien theatrical works while ignoring completely
>> our own unique cultural heritage.~Bashir; "The Die is Cast" (DS9)
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508314975
http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/purpleelaphants/
http://www.twitter.com/roneyii
http://www.linkedin.com/in/MichaelRoneyJr
Modern playwrights have become obsessed with writing human
interpretations of alien theatrical works while ignoring completely
our own unique cultural heritage.~Bashir; "The Die is Cast" (DS9)