Subject: [fairly trivial message] RE: [lojban] Tengwar

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 23:04:49 +0100

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.