zompist bboard

You guys get a preview!

http://www.zompist.com/elkwrite.htm

Wow; that's simply incredible. I think this has to be the most creative and interesting writing system I have come across, and yet not too fantastical as to make it seem ridiculous. I can't say enough good things about it--stylistically it reminds me a bit of Mayan writing, but of a totally different focus. Great work, and definitely worth the wait!

I also like the bit at the end about artistic variation--looking, say, at a long scroll of seemingly just a bunch of people standing in a line of different races, expressions, and facial features, and having it actually be, say, a history of the elcari, is just remarkable.

It sort of reminds me of Mayan writing systems, mainly because many of the Mayan carvings I've seen have had faces and stuff with fancy headresses and other ornaments. Agreeing with Dudicon, I think that this system is very innovative, the most innovative that I've seen.

Very impressive! The only similar writing system I've seen is Pablo Flores' Shkanshej, which also uses facial features, but yours is vastly more sophisticated. (The Mayan comparison did occur to me as well.)

One question: in the discussion of numbers, you mentioned that the diamond symbol is used for 12, but in the pictures below, the diamond appears to be the symbol for 16 (4 x 4). Or did I miss something?

I agree with Dudicon's remarks about the meaning lurking behind a march of faces.
One thought that occurs to me is that Elkaril writing, in addition to being carved or written, could be represented in sculpture--as a line of statues, say. (Two comparisons that come to mind are the real-life stone heads of Easter Island or the Olmecs of Central America, on the one hand; and Tolkien's description of the Pukel-men, the statues lining the road to Dunharrow in The Return of the King, on the other.)

p@,
Glenn

Ooh, yeah - that's really, really innovative and cool! One question that I don't think I saw addressed on the page: is it always written vertically as in the example sentence?

I like imagining some far-future archaeologists discovering Elkaril inscriptions; I wonder how long it would take for them to even figure out that it was writing?

I love it. I've practiced doing three sentences from the grammar, and I'm amazed at how well you've avoided the pitfall of different vowels or consonants becoming difficult to distinguish. (The only gray area I see so far is the t versus the k; but this may be more my fault in the way I draw.)

A question concerning this. Based on the comments I've read about Mayan writing, this system isn't tremendously farfetched as an official writing system, even for humans; but if humans were using it, I would assume there to be some form of adapted cursive system alongside it for quicker writing when necessary, as there was with hieroglyphs. (You have this for the numbers, of course.) Is there such a system? Or are elcari brains and hands more artistically oriented, so that they can dash this out as fast as we might our writing if called upon?

Honestly Zomp, how the hell do you come up with this stuff? That was incredible. Once again, you have not ceased to amaze me. I'd definately like to see some more Elkaril samples, preferably in the stylized form as in the original stone head.

Glenn, I got so caught up in the system design that I forgot to stop at 12. I'll have to correct that.

Penelope, the standard is to write vertically; but it can adapt to the space available-- a frieze, for instance, will be written (or carved) left to right.

Ihano, my feeling is that a quick writing system isn't really needed... drawing a face should compare favorably to writing a word in English, or a character in Chinese. A shorthand system would also violate elcarin aesthetics... by Khemthu-N?r, if it's worth writing down, it's worth spending a few hours to carve it in wood, at least. Or at least draw it nicely.

Fascinating.

The expression variation is a perfect solution to representing the continous vowel space.

I read the sample as "Ekaril"; am I missing an <l> somewhere? Ah, no the nose ring, I get it. I hadn't gone down to the object anaphora section yet. No fun to give away the example like that

The one thing that doesn't seem to fit to me, is the honorific sword.

The part about some writers omitting one of the hands for the causative if it also has the agentive fist is awesome. Would they also do it for the honorific sword, it seems like the sword is being held by the figure. What if there were all three?!

An Elkaril epic would be an intimidating sight. . . . I wanna see it!

Do you know how hard it's going to be not to imitate Elkaril!? Your other languages, they're fascinating, solid, detailed, but not beyond the pale. First the language, now the writing system: Elkaril is too unique to mimic, too awesome not to.

Zomp, can you stop time, or something? Honestly, this is by far the most impressive thing I have seen. Now I pout that I cannot even come up with an alphabet that I am satisfied with.

::

::

::

All above is seconded .

Does the word qara refer to an entire face, or to a facial characteristic?

Come to think of it, is the name qaraju for the alphabet still valid?

:Pictures the scene: a young elcar inscribing a fiendishly difficult and complex riddle, to which the answer is nnem. He pictures all the other elcars being baffled, standing round, and eventually congratuating him as he gets the answer.

Losing his concentration, he looks back on the first character and curses, discovering that he's drawn the face of a horse:.

Aidan wrote:The one thing that doesn't seem to fit to me, is the honorific sword.

I suppose I'd have to agree; from the description, the elcari don't seem particularly warlike or swordwielding.
(Maybe a hammer? That would be an implement usable both in war and in peace, and very elcarin--awfully stereotypical, though.)

On the other hand, the grammar also notes that the one time the elcari king is truly granted authority is during wartime, so the use of the sword may fit, in that respect.

Aidan wrote:The part about some writers omitting one of the hands for the causative if it also has the agentive fist is awesome. Would they also do it for the honorific sword, it seems like the sword is being held by the figure. What if there were all three?!

Hey! That's right, only two hands...I really like the agentive/causative bit too. I'd also been wondering--ever since I had an inkling you were heading this direction--how the double letters used to indicate implosives would be handled. Good to see that there was a solution for those as well.

p@,
Glenn

That really is great. how on earth did you think of it? ah well, one more epic peice of work from you. well done. i've got to get me head round it before i can comment though.

Quite good, It's like translating a logographic writing system into that of an alphabet. I like it.

I have a little question though, I have seen loggraphic alphabets that of Mayans and so on. But how exactly do they work?

Grey wrote:I have a little question though, I have seen loggraphic alphabets that of Mayans and so on. But how exactly do they work?

Well, if varies from language to language. You can get a good idea of how Chinese works from Mark's article on Writing English Chinese-style.

Maya writing is extremely complex. There's a syllabary, and logograms which are also used for rebus value, and there are various different ways of compounding glyphs together and variant forms, so there're often many different ways of writing the same thing. And we don't understand the system perfectly even now. See accounts here and here. Coe's book, mentioned on the former site is a good introduction to the history of the decipherment.

Once again you prove why Almea is the benchmark we all aim for. Nice going!

Hehe I really like this.

Something I noticed: in the examples, the glyph for "geth" appears instead to be simply "ket." I think you may have forgotten the hair and line above the brow.

The elcari most admire texts where the art enhances the message, either reinforcing it or contrasting with it. The faces generally look a bit fierce and intimidating; but expressions and features can be modified to match the referents. E.g. the word nmurthankh `m?rtany' is usually drawn as the face of a m?rtany. A person's name may be a portrait of the person; things said by someone may be given the same treatment. Faces may be made uglier if they refer to unpleasant things.

It seems to me that this is going to be rather difficult, considering the limited degree of freedom the artist has to alter features. How can you make a face into a portrait of a person when you're constrained to give them a certain set of physical features that don't necessarily match up to their actual appearence? I suppose it's possible, but these effects are going to have to be rather subtle, and not obvious to the untrained eye.

Well, I can't say my name looks particularly dignified in Elkar?l, but it is still fascinating, especially since I can look at it and realize that it actually says my name, not just represents it. It's definitely the most involved and un-alphabetic alphabet I've ever seen:



Also, a note: I imagine such a writing system would have interesting implications with describing faces at all. Imagine the police artist's relief at only having to hear "He looked like gtech." Does it in fact work this way?

Dudicon wrote:Well, I can't say my name looks particularly dignified in Elkar?l, but it is still fascinating, especially since I can look at it and realize that it actually says my name, not just represents it. It's definitely the most involved and un-alphabetic alphabet I've ever seen:



Also, a note: I imagine such a writing system would have interesting implications with describing faces at all. Imagine the police artist's relief at only having to hear "He looked like gtech." Does it in fact work this way?

LOL! nice name, i mean face, oh whatever

i dread to think what my names looks like, i would do it, but i am a real prat at this interent stuff really.

I just took a moment to scribble my name (Glenn, or rather Gl?n) down in Elkar?l on a piece of paper; it produced a pretty mean-looking customer, but it worked!

Dudicon, is your "real" name Chris? (I tried to decode it and came up with "Kr?th"--Elkar?l lacking an /s/ phoneme.)

p@,
Glenn

Dudicon wrote:Also, a note: I imagine such a writing system would have interesting implications with describing faces at all. Imagine the police artist's relief at only having to hear "He looked like gtech." Does it in fact work this way?

Heh heh. You can indeed describe face-shapes that way, though it doesn't get you much farther than saying "round-faced".

The facial expression lends itself to some heavy-handed jokes like "When my father (gnq?t) heard it, he was gnqut ('bitter', but the expression is 'very sad'). Except for such jokes, however, it's not considered a problem when the meaning doesn't match the expression (as in Iscun's example above).

Hehe how fun!