The sexy woman! This picture reminds me of a really nice one of Sacsayhuaman in my Spanish textbook that we recently had to retire.
Oh, BTW - ¡Viva el Perú, c@r@jo!
The sexy woman! This picture reminds me of a really nice one of Sacsayhuaman in my Spanish textbook that we recently had to retire.
Just a quick question about this (well, depends on how this goes), but might it be possible to use the calligraphic descriptions in poetry as separate words? For example with maua, "flower", were pauayo, teneso and ko to be separate words (or something similar with word boundaries like pa uayo or tene so), could they be used in a poem about a flower in place of using the word maua? Basically a slightly more complex version of "C is for... A is for.. T is for..."masako wrote:
In these examples you can see that each point is not pronounced or listed as it may not be a juncture or stopping point for the brush. However, each point is covered by the brushstroke. A colon ":" marks a raise of the pen/brush.
I get what you're asking, but the answer might be disappointing. In a word, yes, but with severe limitations.sangi39 wrote:Just a quick question about this (well, depends on how this goes), but might it be possible to use the calligraphic descriptions in poetry as separate words?
I don't think it's unreasonable. I might be remembering this somewhat incorrectly, but back in the very early history of Chinese characters, sometimes new characters were created by adding an arbitrary stroke to an existing character to indicate something with a similar meaning, but which was nonetheless a distinct word. Or maybe that was cuneiform. Either way, nah, you should be somewhat fine as long as this process isn't hugely common (or appears commonly in text). You might get the odd reading error, but chances are that context will take care of that, e.g. "it was raining in the kaya of York"... "no, that can't be right, York is a kama... ohhh...".masako wrote:Just wondering if this is too over-the-top? Or dumb?
to have these glyphs be so similar?
Heh. Good point.sangi39 wrote:Either way, nah, you should be somewhat fine as long as this process isn't hugely common (or appears commonly in text). You might get the odd reading error, but chances are that context will take care of that, e.g. "it was raining in the kaya of York"... "no, that can't be right, York is a kama... ohhh...".
That's kind of a shame. If I were writing this script (and you know I've already started practicing ), I'd use the glyphs whenever I could. Like Sangi suggested, any errors of similitude should be sussed out in context, as in, say, Chinese or Japanese.The thing about this script, is that the "glyphs" would primarily appear in the monumental form, whereas more common "written" or "textual" compositions would be more-or-less written strictly with the syllabary, greatly reducing (not necessarily eliminating) the type of errors you note.
That's nice of you to say, but this script is nothing compared to Han characters, either in breadth, or style. Also, if you want to use glyphs when writing, there certainly isn't a rule saying you can't, however, think of them as more formal than the syllabary...perhaps even stuffy by comparison. Yes, they can reduce character count, but 136 syllables are much easier to parse, read, and write than 500 or so glyphs.That's kind of a shame. If I were writing this script (and you know I've already started practicing), I'd use the glyphs whenever I could.
This isn't a bad translation, but I would simply say ke mauanko.maua nyetetle
Indeed. It is your bubele. I did not mean to overstep my bounds on the matter.masako wrote:That's nice of you to say, but this script is nothing compared to Han characters, either in breadth, or style. Also, if you want to use glyphs when writing, there certainly isn't a rule saying you can't, however, think of them as more formal than the syllabary...perhaps even stuffy by comparison. Yes, they can reduce character count, but 136 syllables are much easier to parse, read, and write than 500 or so glyphs.That's kind of a shame. If I were writing this script (and you know I've already started practicing), I'd use the glyphs whenever I could.
This isn't a bad translation, but I would simply say ke mauanko.maua nyetetle
I'm glad you came around. I was really worried for about 2 minutes.Lambuzhao wrote:I take it back. I take it all back.
Nope.Lambuzhao wrote:Did you make a symbol for eclipse yet?
Yeah, that's how I had it initially, and changed it to save space, but I think I'll change it back for the final product. Thank you.Thrice Xandvii wrote: ↑27 Feb 2018 08:04The section where you describe the example glyphs (lyao, ntlu...) might be slightly more easy to parse if the example glyph was directly before the text explaining it and not in a block above ALL of the descriptions.
Nope. Style and format are really the main things I wanted to flesh out before I publish it on my site. I do look forward to being able to look for feedback on the glyphs once I reach a good point with the gallery. I've been making 3 or 4 news glyphs a day for a few weeks, so I'm much closer to "complete" than I have been for a while.Thrice Xandvii wrote: ↑27 Feb 2018 08:04Any things in particular that you are looking for feedback about?