On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 7:35 PM, LakMeer Kravid <
lakmeerkravid@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Jon Top Hat Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> The new 's' isn't much better than the old, IMHO. I'm including a
> mouse-drawn .bmp of what I was thinking of when I gave my suggestion on
> changing the 's'.
pretty to look at. Making something simple and unobtrusive (because I
somehow have this idea that thats how 's' should be) proves very
difficult while still keeping the pen flow natural.
For example, your 'half-height hump' character that you suggested,
breaks the pen flow. If one flips it horizontally (mirrors it) it no
longer breaks the flow, but it looks very similar to .ebu.
Okay, I have a solution with which you can use my 's' idea, reversed as you say, and not have to worry about .ebu. similarity. Ready? Here it is:
a = current .abu
o = current .abu. with (not actually) a fricative stroke (hereafter accent).
e = current .ibu.
i = current .ibu. with accent
y = current .ybu.
u = current .ybu. with accent
s = reversed "half-height hump"
c,z,j = as s, with appropriate accent and slash marks.
r = rev2 ly. with accent
m = rev.1 my.
n = rev.1 ny.
p/b = rev.2 py./by. without top loop
All else as in rev.2.
(This also frees up p/b to not have that top loop- which as you can probably tell I'm really pushing for- and also not be confusable (<-word?) with any of the vowels. The f/v I can live with... if I have to.)
(Also, I just noticed that ny. in rev.1 (my. in rev.2) looks remarkably like cursive, lower-case 'z'.)
....
Also, have you thought about characters for the selma'o PA1, PA2, and PA3? It's obviously not terribly important or neccessary, as we could spell it out or use the roman characters like we do now, but it's a point of curiousity on my part.
(ex. {34.65 lo ronru'u cu jdima lo patxu} = {civopixamu lo ronru'u cu jdima lo patxu} ~= "A pot sells for 34.65 Euros.")
--
mu'o mi'e .topy'at.
.i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu