Nick:
> Just learnt elron's mapping of Lojban to Tengwar.
It is cool. But ---
Not Elrond? Elron created Scientology.
>
(In this, I run counter to And's amity for 'h'.
I dunno. Given that the
optimal (because most contrastive) pronunciation
of /'/ is [T] (th),
<h> doesn't seem that great. I'd prefer to shed
the apostrophe thus:
<o'e> => <oe>, <o'i> => <oi>, <oi> =>
<oy>.
> Then again, I doubt And thinks that highly of Tengwar.
:-)
Why not? I fell in love with them in early youth, still relish
their
systematicity and especially the way they are an idealization
of
roman miniscules.
(BTW, I find that on my screen I can type in
Tengwar:if I change to HTML encoding (a practise which I
would ordinarily find odious -- HTML encoding, I mean; not typing in
tengwar):
[on my screen this line is written
in a tengwar font]
(I don't know how
come.)
> 3. Ergo, since we have an available vowel carrier that
doesn't actually
> fit Lojban, and a treatment of apostrophe that I think
overkill, why don't
> we kill two birds with one rune, and make the long
vowel carrier into the
> apostrophe? That way you'd get {oi} as "0o0i",
and {o'i} as "0o_i". More
> importantly, {uu} as "0u0u", and {u'u} as
"0u_u" --- not "_u", which looks
> nothing like "0u0u". You'd get a much
less prolix Tengwar, and I think
> it'd be easier to read.
That sounds good. I admit I never studied the proposal for lojban in tengwar.
--And.