Talk:Conlang/Intermediate/Writing

Untitled
I think Header could be advantageously used. More internal links, or even a synopsis table would also be great. (there's no way to know that the resume at the top of the page are extended below.) - Circéus


 * I'm sorry, what do you mean by a "synopsis table" and "resume at the top"? -- Maknas 16:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I've added some headers and altered some of the formatting. The page is now easier to navigate. What do you think? --Ingolemo 16:56, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, It's done now anyway. I'm just not familiar enough with the correct wikivocabulary, I guess. Circeus


 * Oh, wow, that's nice. I didn't know how to do the codeboxes in Wiki before, that's why I had to drop them. Thanks Ingolemo! -- Maknas 17:20, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Romanization
How about a romanization section? Maybe it should go into it's own beginner section? I'll write it if you're okay with me adding it. --Circeus 19:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I just noticed there was a small note on it at the end of Sounds, we might want to expand it into it's own section. --Circeus 12:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Logographic Systems
The following is written about logographic systems: "In a logographic system, each symbol represents a morpheme, or the smallest meaningful part of language." That's nowhere even close to true, and very misleading. In no natural logographic system is this true. Even in Chinese, there are some glyphs used for more than one word, and some words comprised of more than one glyph (where each glyph either has no independent meaning, or has a meaning that's separate from the meaning produced by combining it with the other). And that's just Chinese. In Egyptian, glyphs were used: (1) to stand for words; (2) to stand for phoneme strings; (3) to stand for sounds; (4) to stand for syllables; and (5) to stand for ideas. Most often, what a Chomskyan linguist would call an inflectional "morpheme" was rendered with a phoneme glyph (though, of course, that same glyph could be used, in combination with a line determinative, to stand for whatever picture it resembled). In short, this section is, at the very least, biased, and, at worst, hopelessly inaccurate, and I think it should be changed. Dedalvs (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole organizational plan of the module starts to fall apart after the first four of the main types of script (which may be related to the notice at the top, The text in its current form is incomplete). Wikipedia gives, yonder, six types and also admits that systems are apt not to be purely of one type.  The confusion seems to be compounded by a disparity in common usage between logographic system and logograph &mdash; apparently, under this usage, symbols in a logographic system are not necessarily logographs.  The question isn't whether such usage is "right" or "wrong", but how this module ought to finesse it.  IMO the point about mixed types really ought to be made here. Perhaps the six-type scheme should be adopted.  There are also some topics that are now just sort-of hanging &mdash; off hand, I see ideographic system and logophonetic system mentioned but not very well addressed (both closely related to logographic system).  Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless Alphabet
Does any conlang or natlang have an alphabet where a letter doesn't represent anything alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.166.212 (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 10 April 2013