Re: Gateway to conscripts
On 28/09/2013 14:15, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> I have long had a vague notion of developing a
>> featural script not on the lines of tengwar but having
>> a cuneiform character. Whether this will ever get
>> further than a vague notion, I'm not sure ;)
> I was never terribly interested in featural scripts, at
> least not heavily featural ones.
I suppose my interest stems partly from my interest in
phonology which, as many will know, is probably the aspect
of language that I find most interesting. It interested me
from the time when I first realized there were different
languages with different sounds.
I learnt Pittman Shorthand when I was about 11 or 12 and
that has some featural marking (as does Gregg shorthand
which I learnt later in my teens). Also somewhere in my
mid-teens I came across Alexander Bell's "Visible Speech",
so that by the time I came across Tolkien's tengwar the
notion of featural script seemed quite 'natural' to me :)
You may recall that I was somewhat unimpressed by the
arbitrary ad_hoc values given to the 16 four-bit characters
of "Plan B" ("the particular letters and pronunciations
chosen don't matter much"). I came up with alternative
- gave a CV value to each character, as suggested by Jacques
Guy in his critique of Plan B.
- where each bit in the four-bit "nibble" had a featural value.
It seemed so obvious to me that if each character is encoded
by four bits, then each bit should have a featural value.
Ogham ought to be reformed along the same lines ;)
Guess this is very much a personal choice, but I sort of
like featural scripts.
"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
- 2013-10-12 18:08, J. 'Mach' Wust skrev:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:38:02 +0200, BPJ wrote:...
>> Also my accent has littleSomething similar happened in Scandinavian too -- the 'Great
>> or no qualitative difference between short and long stressed vowels.
> But you still have a quantitative difference? My accent keeps the
> qualitative difference between what originally were high short and
> long stressed vowels (for instance /ˈriːfː/ 'ripe' and /ˈɡ̊ɪb̥/
> 'give!'), but through processes of vowel shortening and lengthening
> it has developed a secondary quantitative difference (for instance
> through shortening in /ʒ̊rib̥/ 'write!' and through lengthening in
> /b̥eʒ̊rɪːb̥/ 'description'), so now there are long and short pairs
> that do not differ in quality for every stressed vowel.
Quantity Shift' which I described --, and Icelandic still has a
system which is similar to yours, but in mainland Scandinavia old
high and mid short vowels tended to merge qualitatively with the
old long vowel one level lower, so that /ı̆/ [ɪ] > [e] so that in
the dialects of my area older _sı̆tt_ ([2sg.]imp. 'sit!') had
merged with _sētt_ (neut.nom.sg. 'seen') as [set:] and came to
be perceived as having the same vowel phoneme as [seː] < _sē_
(imp. and inf. of 'see'), the quantity following automatically
from syllable and morpheme structure as I described. As _sētt_ >
/sett/ exemplifies old long vowels in shortening context kept
their quality but became shortˌ so that these dialects ended up
with long and short alternants of the same quality for most
vowelsˌ and there were analogy processes, loss of voiced
fricatives with concomitant contraction and a simultaneous chain
shift in back vowels which muddied the picture additionally. When
people speaking such dialects adopted/spoke Standard Swedish they
substituted their [i], as in [vrit:] < /wriːðit/ ˈtwistedˈ (with
inf. [vriː] < /wriːða/) in _sitt_ and other words where Central
Swedish speakers (still) have [ɪ] and kept their [e] in words
like _sett_ where C.Sw. speakers have [ɛ]. In fact C.Sw. speakers
tend to perceive W.Sw. speakers as using long vowels in such
words, so for them quality seems to be more important than
quantity. Where I grew up high and high mid vowels tend to be
*very* high so that /e(ː)/ is phonetically [ᵻ(ː)] and /i(ː)/ is
phonetically a syllabic sibilant [z̩(ː)],[^i] but the
phonological contrasts are as I described them.
[^i]: I learned to switch that on and off at will, but even
Gothenburg speakers have a syllabic alveopalatal fricative
[ʑ̩(ː)] for some instances of /i/.
> ...Arends seems to avoid it quite well by allowing the height of
>>> Melin's way of using the connecting upstroke as real vowel letters
>>> may well be more natural and practical than Faulmann's system. I will
>>> not learn it, though, until after I have learnt Gregg's shorthand.
>>> This system has always intrigued me as the most elegant of Western
>>> shorthand systems.
>> It certainly feels more natural once you've learned it, but has
>> the downside that consonant signs other than the first in each
>> word are written above or below the baseline depending on the
>> height of the preceding vowel. The resulting _klättereffekter_
>> ('climbing effects') can be bothersome, but are counterbalanced by
>> breaking longer compounds (but with a smaller space than
>> inter-word space between the parts!) The word _överläkarvikarie_
>> 'stand-in chief physician' is proverbial, but in practice it's
>> abbreviated to ÖverLKVIK.
> You are speaking about Melin's shorthand there? The same effects
> occur heavily in Faulmann-type vocalization, too. Except worse,
> since compounds are often not broken up. And I think Gregg has also
> some of this effect.
vowel symbols to be variable -- compare how the words with A
are written in the image you linked!
>Yes, Swedish has no such prefix, so that _-t_ is uually the only
>>> The regular formation of the consonant+T clusters is a nice solution.
>>> The German systems use a triple-height upwards stroke -- and drop the
>>> +T in "Eilschrift".
>> Final _-t_ is important in Swedish as it is the neuter singular
>> adjective ending, adverb ending and supine ending. BTW many use
>> special wide versions of D, T, St, J etc. for Nd Nt Nst, Nj etc.
>> after E and Ä instead of the backwardsleaning signs.
> So it may be more important than in German, where it mostly occurs
> as third person verbal ending or as the weak verbs' past participle
> ending. In both cases, it is often redundant, by the presence of a
> third person pronoun or of the past past participle prefix ge-.
marker of the supine -- moreover the auxiliary can be omitted in
subordinate clauses _Hon säger att han [har] skrivit_[^2] 'She
says that he
[^2]: By way of illustrating the effects of the vowel shifts etc.
discussed above this is [hʊnː ˈsɛjː£ɻ ˌatʰː ˈhanː ˌhɑː
as spoken on TV but [hun ˈseʑːɜɹ ˈɑtʰːɑn ˌhɒː ^skɹeːʋɜtʰ] in
Gothenburgese, [... ^ʂkɹʑ̩ːʋetʰ] in formal Gothenburg speech
and [hʉβ̞ ˈsz̩ːɾ ˌɑtʰːɜn hɑː ^ʂkɾeːʋɛtʰ] where/when I grew up!