Re: Typesetting Lojban [was: Lojban word processor for Windows?]

[David Brookshire Conner <nellardo@concentric.net>]

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.

Ah, didn't mention that detail, but had in fact thought of it.

In my tengwar mode for lojban, the tehta above a tengwar is for a
following vowel, as most lojban words end in a vowel.  As in Tolkien's 
own Tengwar mode for Old English, a second following vowel is
represented by a tehta *under* the tengwa.  Because of the shape of
the tehtar, you can either draw the lower tehta right-side up, or
upside down (i.e., mirrored, which appeals to me esthetically).

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.

So what about v'v?  You could either write this as a short carrier
followed by the ' tengwa or (if no ambiguity resulted) you could break 
the following-vowel pattern and put the first v above the ' tengwa and 
the second one underneath (since ' never comes between a break and a
vowel or between a consonant and a vowel, this works more than might
first be apparent).


 > >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.

 >  Probably the
 > weakest thing, aesthetically and practically, about the system: most of the
 > letters resemble one another.  You can't get around that, might as well
 > live with it.
 > 
 > 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.

 > 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?

 > >I guess this seems ligature-heavy, but to my thinking, typing the
 > >letters together emphasizes the structure, which is part of the beauty 
 > >of lojban.
 > 
 > Come to think of it, you may be on to something here.  Using ligatures for
 > consonant-clusters emphasizes the clustering, and makes them distinctive.

Yeah - just like the bare tengwa does when using tengwar.

 > And noticing consonant clusters is critical in Lojban (especially as
 > written with frequent "compound cmavo").  And maybe that's what you just
 > said.

Thanks - it is! :-)

 > Ligating cmavo might dilute that, but not if done carefully.

It might, but I can think of two approaches to doing it carefully.

One is to somehow style the consonant-vowel ligatures for cmavo
differently. Maybe the i looks more like a slash, or some other subtle 
tweak to the serifs or shapes.

The other is to simply not use ligatures with consonants in cmavo -
there's plenty you can use that are just vowels (or vowels and ').

 > 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.

 > Bear in mind I'm one of those who pushed early on for permitting {h} as an
 > alloglyph of {'}, for handwriting.  So I'm in favor of pretty heavy
 > representations of {'}, and generally fearful of losing it.  Mmm, I'm torn
 > regarding the idea of merging the apostrophe and the dot.  If anything, I
 > want to emphasize the break, not obscure it.  But on the other hand, I
 > could see some kind of big bold comma-ish thing ligated on top of an {i}
 > that almost becomes a syllable-glyph for {'i} (the /hi/ syllable).

Exactly.

 > Confusion with {ta' i} or {ta i} doesn't scare me much, since I do NOT
 > intend for the {'} to be lost (if anything I would overemphasize it), and
 > if we're looking to pump up the visual distinctiveness of the {.i} cmavo it
 > will not conflict with the {i} in {ta'i}.  All of which also doesn't treat
 > the other four vowels and the need for a certain amount of visual
 > consistency.

'a is easy, as is 'u. 'o and 'e are a bit more of a stretch, but if
you think about the bar on a Q or the hook on double-loop forms of g,
you get something pretty reasonable. And they all involve this big,
comma-like hook thing.

Ligating i with a preceding vowel is an easy one, as is u and a (if
you use the small-loop-overhook shape of a, not the single loop
form). e and o are harder, but again, not impossible. For example, eo
ligates much like ae. ao is an obvious extension. And so on....

 > Don't fear heavy ligatures; wait till I show you my Klingon font...

:-)

Brook

---------
Hidden DOS secret: add BUGS=OFF to your CONFIG.SYS

---------
Fancy. Myth. Magic.
http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/