From mark@xxx.xxx Sun Sep 19 09:22:49 1999 X-Digest-Num: 238 Message-ID: <44114.238.1305.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: 19 Sep 1999 16:22:49 -0000 From: mark@xxx.xxx Subject: Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?] >From: David Brookshire Conner >Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:06:58 -0400 (EDT) >Cc: lojban@onelist.com > >From: David Brookshire Conner > >mark@kli.org writes: > > brook writes: > > >Most of the basic little words end up being a single glyph: one tengwa > > >with one tehta above, maybe one below. This suggests ligatures for > > >these combinations, at least in Tengwar. They become pictogram-like > > >word-characters, yet still have all the phonemic information apparent. > > > > You really should have come up with some way to make diphthongs -- both VV > > and V'V -- into tehta-combinations. That way *all* cmavo would be single > > symbols. It would make a nice cmavo/brivla distinction. Not sure if it's > > possible without making a real mess of the notation, though. [ ... ] >So that covers cvv. ' is a tengwa itself (you should like that, Mark - >really emphasizes it) - it's a voiceless velar fricative (x is the >voiced velar fricative). So that handles cv'v with two tengwar and two >tehta - still visually clear from a selbri, which *must* have a bare >tengwa somewhere. v or vv cmavo can be represented using the short >carrier symbol. I like the emphasis... but considering how much all tengwar look alike it may be overdoing it; I might be with Ivan here. Actually, halla would probably be a fine choice for {'}; isn't that what's suggested in The Book's tengwar mode? Or else hyarmen, for distinctiveness. > > >Actually, the one open question I'd still muddling about for this mode > > >is whether to put "r" and "l" in Row 6 of the Tengwar - the > > >semivowels. This has a certain elegance, but it does make the writing > > >a bit more monotonous looking. But most tengwar modes don't put r and > > >l up there, but as part of the "other tengwa". > > > > Tengwar by their nature are monotonous-looking when written. > >True. Though Quenya uses enough of the "other" tengwar that it looks >less monotonous than lojban does. Monotony isn't the worst of it. Even if there are plenty of "extras", you still have the problem that two very different words look almost identical due to the similar tengwar. Hebrew gets criticized for this for its few pairs of similar letters; it's far worse in Quenya. > > There's a certain charm to teeny little Grade 6 r/l, especially given their > > role as hyphens/glue in Lojban. > >Actually, the hyphen/glue thing makes me think they *shouldn't* be >grade 6 - if they look visibly different, they suggest a different >structure as well. In fact, this is one place where a Loglan mode >works a little better - you can use Grade 6 for R and L when it's >acting like a vowel, and the other tengwar otherwise. But the grade-6, as I recall, are small little things, good for hyphens. The other letters are more consonantal. Oh, and {y} should definitely be somehow distinctive, in any mode (even English works this OK, with the descender): it signals "brivla" just like a consonant cluster. Oh, and I was thinking about your reliance on tehta-less tengwar... that's okay, but bear in mind that noticing the *absence* of a tehta is a lot harder than noticing the *presence* of something. It works well at the ends of words for flagging cmene, but may be easier to miss medially. > > Have you bounced this off Ivan Derzhanski, Lojbanist, typographer, and > > tengwarist extraordinaire? > >Nope. Don't know him. Got an email address? Or is he on this list? Don't find him, he'll find you. > > Not much ligating you can do with {.i} though. Except for a special font > > or form for the {i}. > >Which is all a ligature is anyway :-) An i with a stem that looks >something like a backwards capitol L. Or larger, or bold, or swash... ~mark