[84900] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: idea for writing system
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nahqun@gmail.com)
Sun Jul 27 21:44:11 2008
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:43:36 -0400
From: nahqun@gmail.com
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <000a01c8f034$845b9820$0800a8c0@juH.Seruqtuq.net>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Maybe if I put it like this:
We have a verb *spelt out* (t) (h) (I) (n) (k). We then have a suffix
as *one* symbol: (-ing).
This is the standard, official, accepted way to write (thinking).
We then have the *spoken* mis-pronunctiation (thinkin').
Our writing system was then *altered* to incorporate spoken "errors".
A single glyph for (-ing) *would* work.
A seperate or altered glyph would need to be introduced for (-in').
Possibly even (i)(n)(').
The *grammaticaly unofficial* suffixes in question came about *long
after* pIqaD was first written down.
~naHQun
On 7/27/08, DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I was just pointing out that it wouldn't work if each suffix was represented
> by a single glyph.
> "thinkin'" breaks up that suffix and puts in another character. If -ing was
> represented by a single
> letter, how would you break it up to spell it differently?
>
>
> DloraH
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
>> [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org] On Behalf Of nahqun@gmail.com
>> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 16:23
>> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
>> Subject: Re: idea for writing system
>>
>> -replying via mobile, no control over format-
>> A writing system wouldn't have an *official* way to convey an
>> ungrammatical aspect-at first. "Popular usage" would eventually take
>> over.
>> "Thinkin' " is ungrammatical, but replacing the "g" with "'" is the
>> proper way to write it.
>>
>> ~naHQun
>>
>> On 7/27/08, DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> I sort-of like the idea of a glyph per suffix. But it's just
>> >> so artificial.
>> >
>> > pIqaDvam vIqelta', 'ach KGT nav 181, pab Hat QIj MO. -lu'
>> mojaQ -laH mojaQ
>> > je luDuDlu' 'ej chen
>> > -luH -la' ghap. mojaQ 'oSchugh wa' Degh, chay' ghItlh?
>> >
>> >
>> > I had thought of this concept once, but in KGT p181 MO explains the
>> > ungrammatical combination of
>> > -lu' and -laH into -luH or -la'. If it was a glyph per
>> suffix, how would
>> > they express this?
>> >
>> >
>> > DloraH
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508314975
>> http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/purpleelaphants/
>> http://www.twitter.com/roneyii
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/MichaelRoneyJr
>>
>> Modern playwrights have become obsessed with writing human
>> interpretations of alien theatrical works while ignoring completely
>> our own unique cultural heritage.~Bashir; "The Die is Cast" (DS9)
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508314975
http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/purpleelaphants/
http://www.twitter.com/roneyii
http://www.linkedin.com/in/MichaelRoneyJr
Modern playwrights have become obsessed with writing human
interpretations of alien theatrical works while ignoring completely
our own unique cultural heritage.~Bashir; "The Die is Cast" (DS9)
