Intriguing idea, Cheyenne. I can sort of grasp what you're saying, but not exactly. Could you elaborate?
eru
| Holy Worlds Christian Forum https://archive.holyworlds.org/ |
|
| Words Only? https://archive.holyworlds.org/viewtopic.php?f=244&t=4124 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Cheyenne [ August 15th, 2011, 12:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Words Only? |
I remember reading an article about a Japanese man who held the record for memorizing up the thousandth digit of pi or whatever. The article continued to explain how Asian people in general could memorize more because each number in their languages tends to have a smaller amount of syllables. As in, numbers don't go "...seventy-one, seventy-two, etc." Rather they have a singular name, which takes up less space in their brains than how English and other languages tend to voice them, say seventy and addition of the seven that makes it seventy-seven, if that way of describing it makes any sense. I was wondering if I could do that with words. Say, instead of necessarily making an alphabet, merely make characters that describe singular words themselves, with slight elaborations to indicate grammar. Would this be a good idea? |
|
| Author: | Andrew Amnon Mimetes [ August 15th, 2011, 1:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Words Only? |
Intriguing idea, Cheyenne. I can sort of grasp what you're saying, but not exactly. Could you elaborate? eru |
|
| Author: | Cheyenne [ August 15th, 2011, 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Words Only? |
As in, there are no letters. A word is not spelled out with letters. There are only symbols; typically one symbol would indicate one word, except in the case of say a compound word, in which two symbols (words) are combined. To indicate grammar, tenses, etc. would be universal additions to show the form of the word. For instance, say "a" is a symbol and it means "to run." And "~" is an addition to a symbol (verb) that would basically add "-ing" and make the verb the present progressive. (Like in Spanish "hablar" would become "hablando.") So "a~" would be to mean "running." |
|
| Author: | Neil of Erk [ August 15th, 2011, 3:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Words Only? |
Chinese uses the kind of word-symbols you are talking about. Look up the Chinese system, its very interesting. However, I would personally caution against using this method. First of all, it's highly difficult for the less experienced con-langer, and second, it will be extremely inaccessible to your readers. |
|
| Author: | Andrew Amnon Mimetes [ August 16th, 2011, 6:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Words Only? |
OK, now I get it. That does sound similar to Chinese. How extensive of a vocabulary could be created with, say, our alphabet? Or, how much grammar would be added on through auxiliary symbols? eru |
|
| Author: | Cheyenne [ August 16th, 2011, 10:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Words Only? |
I'm not really sure what you mean by our alphabet and vocabulary. With auxiliary symbols, each different one would indicate tense, present progressive, and the way in which something is stated. On paper, it would be a small written symbol, though spoken each one would have a different pronunciation or addition to the word. And thank you for everyone who posted so far. Even if I'm not replying directly, I have read and appreciate your insight.  This is the first time I'm attempting to make a language.
|
|
| Author: | Josiah Mimetes [ August 17th, 2011, 3:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Words Only? |
Sequoya ran into the same problem when he wrote down Cherokee. In the end he realized that it takes far to many symbols, that it's hard to remember and just easier to write in letters. personally I also think it's easier to write with letters but that's just me. |
|
| Author: | Cheyenne [ August 17th, 2011, 6:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Words Only? |
Yeah, that's one of the problems I'm encountering... |
|
| Author: | Neil of Erk [ August 18th, 2011, 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Words Only? |
You might consider a syllabary, where each symbol represents a syllable. This means you'll need a several hundred less symbols in the long run. It's especially nice for those word roots. |
|
| Author: | Cheyenne [ August 18th, 2011, 11:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Words Only? |
That's a pretty good idea. I might try that. Thanks.
|
|
| Author: | Andrew Amnon Mimetes [ August 19th, 2011, 5:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Words Only? |
Isn't a syllabary what Sequoya ended up using? Sort of a mix between an alphabet like English or word symbols like Chinese. It sounds interesting, anyways  eru |
|
| Author: | Tsahraf ChahsidMimetes [ September 29th, 2011, 5:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Words Only? |
Here are some links (I like links): About writing systems: http://omniglot.com/ A Consonantal Alphabet: http://omniglot.com/writing/berber.htm An Alphabet: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/georgian.htm A Syllabic Alphabet: http://omniglot.com/writing/ethiopic.htm A Syllabary: http://omniglot.com/writing/cypriot.htm About Semanto-Phonetic Systems (I think this what you are thinking of): http://omniglot.com/writing/semanto-phonetic.php Chinese: http://omniglot.com/writing/chinese.htm |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|