Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
- On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:55 PM, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 07:38:18PM -0400, Zach Wellstood wrote:These are very limited contexts, though. In many environments
> > I removed all of the capitals from a randomly chosen paragraph to
> > demonstrate my opinion that readability has been very very minimally
> > affected.
> And this is, in fact, how much of today's online generation
> communicates: all lowercase. With the advent of self-correcting input on
> handheld devices, a few capital letters are making it into the chat
> streams, but for the most part it's still mostly in lowercase (very few
> people bother to uppercase something when texting, or chatting on
> forums, etc., and they still understand each other).
> Another data point: my wife always writes emails in all lowercase, even
> though she doesn't do that in handwriting. I find it rather jarring, but
> OTOH it's not hard to read at all. In fact, it has a more informal feel
> to it than a Properly Capitalized message.
capitalization conventions are expected.
> It's this informal feel that I wanted to capture when I decided thatThat's a perfectly valid aesthetic choice. No issues here.
> 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.
> > If you want to really mess things up, you could remove all punctuationIt is still a convention, though, and there's plenty of room for variation
> > 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.
in how you use punctuation. English has competing styles when it comes to
using certain punctuation marks among native speakers, as do many other
> And while capitalization is only convention, I'd argue that forAll of language is built around social conventions, so of course it's
> *English*, it's preferable. 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?
> Reading *any* foreign language (conlang or not) requires some initial
> effort to learn the writing anyway, be it romanization or native script.
> 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.
understandable to use conventions for natural languages. As far as the
"English-centric bias", I think that many of the conlangers here who are
presenting conlangs to a general audience (i.e. as part of a novel or
story) will be doing so using English, so that's an obvious starting point.
My preference is to use conventions more akin to Spanish: only sentence
beginnings and proper nouns get capitalized. I find that to be a good
minimal position -- sentence-initial capitalization serves to reinforce the
period, which could easily be missed, and it's often important to pick out
proper nouns easily, if for no other reason than that you know what
probably shouldn't be translated.
That's my reasoning for my preferred conventions. It's all up to individual
artistic choice, ultimately.
- Hallo conlangers!
On Thursday 27 June 2013 21:14:47 R A Brown wrote:
> On 27/06/2013 00:57, Aodhán Aannestad wrote:
> > Ah, that was mostly just my impression - apologies for
> > presenting it as fact when it wasn't!
> No worries.
> The question "And a further question ( :P ) - for people
> with IE-esque conlangs where case morphology is largely
> inalienable from nouns, are foreign names uninflectable or
> are they wedged somehow into the case system?" is an
> interesting one.
> Except I would not restrict it to IE-esque conlangs. Any
> conlang with case morphology will surely have this problem.
> Indeed, there are two problems in dealing with foreign names:
> 1. How do you put the name into the phonology of your
> conlang, whether nouns are declined or not?
> 2. If your language has a case system, do you leave them
> uninflected, or some & uninflected and other inflected (as
> in Latin & Greek), or do you assimilate them all into your
> declension systems?
> We had a thread on 1 above not so very long ago. But 2 is
> interesting, though, unfortunately, not one I can answer as
> I have no conlangs with a case system. ;)
I have laid out yesterday how this is done in Old Albic.
In that language, things are comparably simple because the
declension is pretty agglutinative. If your language has
articles that inflect for case, you can use them to mark
case on indeclinable foreign nouns. Old Albic does this
with finite clauses that function as adverbial phrases:
Anaphelasa Mørdindo om janom emi alarasa laras.
AOR-entertain-3SG:P-3SG:A Mørdindo.AGT the:M-OBJ boy-OBJ
the:I-INS AOR-sing-3SG:P-3SG:A song.OBJ
'Mørdindo entertained the boy by that he sang a song.'
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1