zompist bboard

How does the Skourene script handle consonants that are part of an affix rather than of the root?

Some of the affixes (such as the prefixes, and the definite suffix -ul), have their own symbols. Everything else is just handled using the syllabic glyphs.

I think all forms of the affixing nouns can be distinguished by the triuṭittar. E.g. for tebbeḍ:

tebbeḍ = tet-tet
ittebbeḍ = it-tet-tet
tebbeḍi = tet-te-ti
tebbeḍe = tet-te-te
ittebbeḍe = it-tet-te-te
tebbeḍu = tet-te-tu

zompist wrote: I think all forms of the affixing nouns can be distinguished by the triuṭittar.

Nouns beginning with a vowel might be a problem here as their ergative forms begin with ŋ-. Though I suppose indicating the presence of a consonant would suffice here, as none of the other forms prefixes a consonant.

Also, many of the ergative/absolutive affixes of the verb have consonants that can't be distinguished by the triuţittar. How are those distinguished from each other?

They're not. So far as I can see, this only affects a few forms-- e.g. absolutive -at and -as-- which is no great loss.

(Writing systems are often not complete, failing to capture all phonemic distinctions in the language.)

Or if they're borrowed, hopeless at representing the new language.

I imagine that the Skourenes would use additional special triutittar to represent these extra prefixes and suffixes that aren't shown in the description (like the one they had for Aksun which indicated it was a toponym).