Talk:Constructed script

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Constructed languages (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Artifical is a bad word to use here. It's prejudicial; to say that one thing is "natural" and another "artifical" is usually to give preference to the first. It's not really accurate; writing is something that distinguishes us from the animals, and hence all writing is artifical. Even in the sense that you give, most scripts are artifical. Cyrillic has a distinct point of origin by one person; so do many of the scripts of India. What's the gain of lumping Cherokee, Cyrillic and Cirth together, and contrasting them with Greek and Chinese? --Prosfilaes 05:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


This issue could be described in the article. What is the preferred term of writing systems scholars? Deh 14:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to use the term "conscript" here, as if it were normal usage for a reader unfamiliar with such jargon? Ben 22:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The term is quasi-defined at the top of the page (as a parenthesized implied synonym). But if it bothers you, why not replace each use with 'constructed script'? Deh 14:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I will, but I wanted to wait a day or so in case somebody objected. Ben 19:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Japanese[edit]

I'm looking at the Japanese article through Bablefish, and it looks like it has a number of cool Oriental scripts that this article doesn't have. Unfortunately, since Bablefish does hilarious things to Japanese, and it's not a language that I can produce anything from even armed with a dictionary. Is there anyone who knows Japanese that can even produce a summary of what that article may have on Oriental conscripting?--Prosfilaes 16:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I know a little Japanese. Here's my translation of their list:
--DenisMoskowitz 14:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Alphabet 26, IIRC, is a 1960's (?) monocase Latin alphabet/font. Relatively uninteresting. Thanks for the translation.--Prosfilaes 22:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Enoku probably refers to John Dee's Enochian alphabet. Most of the examples from anime don't seem to be coherent writing systems. — Gwalla | Talk 22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence breaks off in the middle[edit]

Under Tolkien: "While this is the most" and that's all. Put into the article by "Paperflowergirl". AnonMoos 23:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Under consideration by Unicode"[edit]

The Tolkien scripts seem to be under indefinite consideration by Unicode, never advancing in the approval process (as far as can be determined from publicly-accessible info). But there's a famous anecdote that Tolkien script files included with a 1970's-era plotting or typesetting software package (as a hackish joke) caused great bafflement among German users of the program... AnonMoos 23:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

John Malone - Unifon[edit]

I guess John Malone who created Unifon isn't the same one as the Liberty Media guy? --213.47.109.179 12:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyrillic[edit]

"Not much is known about the inventors of other scripts, though Cyrillic was (according to myth) created by St. Cyril." This seems to be at least partially nonsense; Cyril created the Glagolitic alphabet, but the Cyrillic was named for him by one of his disciples. See Cyrillic alphabet#History or early Cyrillic alphabet. -Octavo 17:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


evolution ?[edit]

Scripts don't 'naturally evolve'; they mutate through political forces; when outstanding users introduce new elements to an existing system. --Newepoch 15:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

==Duh[edit]

I'm glad we have this article: like, ALL scripts are artifical. •Jim62sch•dissera! 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of this article?[edit]

This article is worthless as others have pointed out. There are no references to actual peer reviewed journals or articles likely because this distinction between "natural" and "artificial" scripts is arbitrary. Aside from the 3 or four inventions of writing, I doubt any commonly used scripts today were created by accident--rather by intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.32 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

IPA "invented" or you mean "inveRted" letters ?[edit]

IPA "invented" or you mean "inveRted" letters ?

Someone needs to check this out and maybe correct it.

I mean IPA has a lot of inveRted=turned around/over letters, but it could contain "invented"=made-up ones too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.151.213 (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tengwar and Cirth[edit]

'As of 2010...' What is the current situation, five years later? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)