On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:37:11 +0200 Peter Cyrus <pcy...@alivox.net> wrote:
> Ken, your explanation seems more permissive than I had anticipated. > One particularity of this script is that it is written in different > "gaits", depending on the phonology of the language. Languages with > open syllables, like most Niger-Congo or Austronesian languages, would > write it as a syllabary. Languages with fixed syllables, like > Chinese, Korean or Vietnamese, would write it as blocks, like Hangul. > Languages with variable syllables, like most Indo-European languages, > would write it as an alphabet. And Afro-Asiatic languages would write > the vowels as diacritics to highlight the triliteral roots. But all > these gaits would use the same underlying letters, and the same > underlying Unicode PUA characters. This reminds me of linearised Hangul. (Can that be encoded to distinguish it from normal Hangul?). There is also an element of Egyptian here, where I am not sure whether the idea of writing normal text has been abandoned 'forever'. (Normal Egyptian text would require something like Ideographic description characters, but with mandatory composition.) Taking a lead from Hangul, could this script be analysed in terms of initial consonants, initial vowels, non-initial vowels, and final consonants? Richard.
