[84901] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: idea for writing system
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nahqun@gmail.com)
Sun Jul 27 21:48:18 2008
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:47:29 -0400
From: nahqun@gmail.com
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <3a6c71460807271843y3e23aa2dm807c7cd61955d1a2@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
HIvqa' veqlargh!
Didn't mean to capitalize the "i" in "(t)(h)(i)(n)(k)"
~naHQun
On 7/27/08, nahqun@gmail.com <nahqun@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
>
--
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)
