[lojban-beginners] Re: Orthography

["Matt Arnold" <matt.mattarn@gmail.com>]

On Dec 26, 2007 5:55 PM, Danny <feedmecereal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there much of a push for alternative scripts for Lojban? I have
> been particularly interested in learning about using Tengwar instead
> of the more traditional Latin script.

There has not been a push, but there has been playing around. Here's a
forwarded thread about the D'ni orthography for Lojban. The files
mentioned here are stored at:

http://picasaweb.google.com/matt.mattarn/Lojban

Next, I'll hunt up my own little toy orthography for Lojban.

-Eppcott



Forwarded conversation
Subject: [lojban] D'ni orthography for Lojban
------------------------

From: Jon MacLeod <eye_onus@yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 9, 2006 5:50 PM
To: lojban-list@lojban.org


I would like to know what Lojbanistan thinks of the D'ni orthography I am
submitting, I am including to files- one with the transliteration between
Lojban letterals and D'ni characters, and the other with an example Lojban text
written with these characters- namely, rab.spir.'s translation of the song that
never ends.

mu'o mi'e .topy'at.



____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
----------
From: Yanis Batura <ybatura@mail.ru>
Date: Nov 9, 2006 7:51 PM
To: Jon MacLeod <lojban-list@lojban.org>


What I think is that sending a 500 KB letter to everyone isn't the
best idea.

mi'e .ianis



To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

----------
From: Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2006 12:16 AM
To: lojban-list@lojban.org


I think Yanis makes a valid point, but I am also going to answer the
question asked.

I think it's pretty.  It looks like it's designed to be easy to write
in cursive, adjacent letters join up nicely.  That's a good feature.

It seems to me that anyone using this for an extended time is likely
to make the 'i' shape more rounded, just because it's quicker and
easier than drawing corners (making it less 'L' shaped and more 'C'
shaped).  (The intent may be for the scribe to lift the pen at the end
of the top stroke and put it back down near the beginning, but in a
hurry, or after they get familiar with making the shapes, I'll bet a
lot of people will just keep their pen on the paper because it's
easier.  For example, which do you find easier to write, cursive or
print?)  The backward strokes on 'f', 'p', and perhaps 'z', look like
they could be tiresome, I imagine after a while a scribe might get
sloppy with these, making them into loops perhaps.  It is good there
are only two different types of feature you have to go back and do
after scribbling the 'main' line of the word - the vertical bars, and
the short horizontal ticks (like dotting 'i's and crossing 't's); any
more than two features, I feel, may be unappealing.

Now for my pet crusade.  I see some commonalities between symbols for
similar sounds: 'v' and 'b' are similar, as are 'c' and 's'.  I assume
this is intentional, that the visual differences are intended to
represent the oral differences.  But it does not do this as well as it
might: the written distinction between these pairs is the same
(presence or absence of a tick), but the differences in sound, and in
the shape and use of the mouth, are quite different.  So the tick does
not, in itself, have a meaning beyond 'some variation on the sound'.
Personally, I would find it much more appealing and symmetrical if the
tick had a more particular meaning, e.g. 'voiced'.  One shape to
represent 'p', the same shape with a tick to represent 'b'.  A shape
for 'c', the same shape with a tick for 'j'.  't' and 'd', 'k' and
'g', maybe even ' (h) and 'y'.

As I said, that's my personal crusade.  But the observations I make
above it, I think may be more relavent to more people.

mi'e .xius.
--
Good night, and have a rational tomorrow!

----------
From: Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2006 12:21 AM
To: lojban-list@lojban.org



Yanis did not come up with a workable alternative either, so I would
suggest using:
www.box.net

It is a free service, you can upload any file you want, and get a
'public URL'.  You just need to post the URL, and anyone who wishes to
see the file, can, free for them also.
----------
From: Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2006 12:46 AM
To: lojban-list@lojban.org



Oops, I spoke too soon.  'l' and 'n' need different types of vertical
bar to distinguish them.  When I go back to fill in features of a
word, my mind is already moving on the next word; the distinction
between 'l' and 'n' looks subtle enough that I suspect my brain may
have to stutter back to be sure to make the right type of line,
interrupting flow of thought.  I haven't actually tried it, and after
I've trained in this alphabet, I may not even consciously notice that
I'm writing two different types of vertical bar, but, in my mind, I
imagine it being a niggling imp in the back of my brain.

I stated that it's good there are few features you have to go back
for; in my ideal orthography, you'd never have to go back over what
you've written.  But, this may come at the cost of making the symbols
overly large, and perhaps there are benefits to having to 'stutter' -
it may keep your thoughts from drifting away, which would be easier if
you never had to go back on what you're writing.  So, there are issues
other than my opinion I would recommend you to consider before making
a decision.  But, for what it's worth, that's my opinion.
----------
From: Matt Arnold <matt.mattarn@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2006 12:09 PM
To: lojban-list@lojban.org


It looks beautiful.
-Eppcott
----------
From: Jon MacLeod <eye_onus@yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2006 5:15 PM
To: lojban-list@lojban.org


I apologize if I caused anyone distress, I did not realize that the size of the
document was an issue.
-Jon Jones

"I have a brain, I've just lost my mind." -Ian McLeod

"As a percentage of total universal knowledge, what I know is
statistically insignificant." - me

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GCS>$ d+(++) s++:-- a- C++ UL P L++>+++++ !E W+(++) N+ o? K- !w---- O-
M-(+)@ V? PS+++ PE- Y+ PGP- t+ !5-- X(+) R+ !tv-- b+++ DI+ D+ G e* h+*
r+(++) y+(++)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------



____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
----------
From: Jon MacLeod <eye_onus@yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 10, 2006 5:36 PM
To: lojban-list@lojban.org


The D'ni characters are meant to written with the continous line done first,
then to go back through the word and put in the accents (ticks) and flags
(vertical lines). Writing the wors as such may be odd at first, but it does
enable someone to scribble something in D'ni script rather quickly.
The D'ni language has 24 different characters, 11 with accented versions (the
xy. and by., for example), and has 35 individual sounds. I honestly don't know
why the creators of the Myst series of games decided to attach a certain symbol
to a certain phoneme, I just know which one's are which.

You can have a look for yourself at the whole D'ni character set and teir
attached phonemes at this page:
http://linguists.bahro.com/domahreh/lessons/lesson02.html

You'll have to download the D'ni font to actually see the characters, that's
located here: http://linguists.bahro.com/domahreh/lessons/media/rcd_fonts.zip
I don't have anything against altering Lojbanic usage of the D'ni character set
to be more correct, such as having the accent mean voiced and accent-less
unvoiced, for example- if you are wont to, by all means alter it as you see fit
to improve for Lojbanic usage, I would love to see the result, and I'll be more
than happy to fix the font mappings to your results.

Truth be told, I have my own problem with the current mappings- there is no way
to distinguish between emphasized and non-ri vowels, except by underlining
them. Possibly using an accent to indicate stress, but that might confuse
anyone who actually tried to read it.
----------
From: Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2006 1:10 AM
To: lojban-list@lojban.org



I kind of figured that was the way it was intended.

Just so you know my motivation:  I think if a symbol set is going to
be widely used, many people are, after time, going to get sloppy about
making the precise prescribed shapes.  The degree to which that
sloppiness affects legibility (specifically, the ability to quickly
and with certainty classify different symbols) can be reduced with
planning.

So, I was trying to anticipate how the characters may change over
time.  Take, for example, lowercase 'l'.  In print, it's a vertical
line (perhaps with serifs).  In cursive, it's commonly drawn as a tall
loop.  As such, the cursive 'l' really has a much more fundamental
feature in common with the print 'o' than it has with the print 'l'.
No-one I know about has confused a cursive 'l' for an 'o', and the two
are still quite different in that the 'entry' and 'exit' points are
typically at the bottom of the 'l' loop and at the top of the 'o'
loop, but this demonstrates the principle of how sloppiness can affect
the characteristics of symbols.  Anticipating how it is likely to
manifest itself could guide in the design of a symbol set whose
features are more resistant to sloppines.


Ah.  I did not realise that the typeface came from a game.  I wonder
if copyright is an issue.

I think if a new alphabet is to be chosen for Lojban, it must have
design considerations which are compatible and harmonious with Lojban.
 The first consideration I can think of is that it should be robust
against time; i.e. robust against sloppiness.  Features which may get
smeared or de-emphasised in haste should, as much as possible, retain
as much recognisability as possible, and be as easily distinguised
from other smeared features as possible.

The second design consideration I would put forward is orthogonality
(e.g. that the presence/absence of the accent in a symbol correspond
to a *particular* feature of the corresponding phoneme, e.g. whether
the phoneme is voiced or not).

There are interesting consequences and interplays to take into
consideration.  I find it quite fascinating.  It elicits some deep
thinking on how exactly perception works, when one explores how one
symbol can be made 'as different as possible' from another symbol,
within rules.

Omniglot (http://www.omniglot.com/) is a good place to explore shapes
of letters.  If you're interested in alphabets and orthographies, a
visit there is highly recommended.  And, of course, the IPA (
http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/ipa/fullchart.html) is a valuable resource
for classifying the other end of the orthography: the phones and
phonemes (different words! different concepts!) that are represented
by the shapes on the page.

:) aha, you'll get me in trouble.  I know better than to try and claim
I am 'correct' on this issue.  I express opinions.  Others will
express other opinions.  History will decide which opinions are more
valid.  Or it won't.

I have mused on matters of orthography for years, but I'm still not
sure my expertise is up to the high standard I have set for a 'perfect
alphabet'.  I guess I should get started trying.

I like that sentiment.  It makes me more eager to share what little
expertise I have, and collaborate with those whose goal is also to
contribute to the collective knowledge.

----------
From: Jon MacLeod <eye_onus@yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 11, 2006 5:10 PM
To: lojban-list@lojban.org


I'll find out.
I actually considered revising the linkage between the sounds and symbols
myself, but I have absolutely no experience in the matter, however poorly you
may do, I have no doubt it would be better than my attempt. I do believe that
some form of alteration would be a good idea.
.ui I must say that the quote orginates from the saying "A wise man knows that
he knows nothing." And is meant in a sarcastically humorous tone- even it is a
factual statement. (I like using big wors- they're more presice.)
mi'e .topy'at.