I've made the decision to create a *logography* for my *polysynthetic* conlang. Probably not the smartest idea, but I think it will be an interesting challenge.
Per se there's no reason why it couldn't work, bit it'd have to work differently from Chinese. I've thought about this, and I think you could have a major ideogram for the word root and smaller, simpler symbols for each affix. It would be a bit like Japanese with kanji for the lexical element and hiragana for the grammar. Just with more emphasis on the latter.
Oof! Yeah, there is a reason why learning Japanese is so damn hard. Spoken Japanese is relatively simple, but written is a nightmare and effectively two writing systems at once...
Important thing to consider is that certain scripts will fit a language better depending on its grammar and phonology: Abjads work very well for Semitic languages bc they have short root words made up of only a couple of consonants that are then put into set grammatical templates. That and Semitic languages have very predictable vowels, so after you get the hang of how a word is pronounced you don't really need to mark the vowels in it. Abjad wouldn't work at all for Slavic languages for example, bc they have root words that stay together and you attach prefixes and suffixes to them and many of these root words differ by only a single vowel eg. "Sąd" means "court (of law)" in Polish but "Sad" means "orchard". For Slavic languages precision is needed, and they also tend to have long consonant clusters (especially West Slavic languages like Polish or Czech) so for them an alphabet is the perfect writing system, and they all have mostly consistent spelling. But for a language like Hindi an Abugida is a much better choice bc its words are built of consonant vowel pairs, some words ending in a consonant, lots of consonant-vowel combinations... Having a system that cares mostly about consonants but also has a way to differentiate between different possible syllables suits it and many other languages of India very well. What wouldn't suit it would be a Syllabary, bc then you'd have to create HUNDREDS of individual characters for every possible consonant-vowel pairing in the language. This is why it fits languages with very strict syllable structure like Japanese. There are only so many possible syllables in Japanese and all words are (V-)CV-CV-CV(-n) with no exceptions. Japanese though has many historical and grammatical quirks that made it end up with three writing systems all at once: two Syllabaies and some 50 thousand Logographs... A similar language that doesn't suffer from this is Korean, which uses a Featural script (Hangul) that works like an alphabet where letters form syllable blocks, which works really well with Korean phonotactics and grammar and such, bc it didn't evolve naturally but was created by a group of VERY intelligent people on the order of King Sejong the Great. The only real reason why most languages today don't use featural scripts is bc it'd be REALLY hard to implement in real life, especially with global languages like English where different dialects can have wildly different pronunciations- to the point where certain words would be unreadable between dialects if it used a featural script (was written how the word is pronounced).
To those who’s watching, it’s ‘hiragana’, not hirigana like it’s misspelled here. Other than that, great video, simple and to-the-point! I love your series!
(2:50, 4:00) I find your arguments that abugidas are inherently consistent and alphabets to be inconsistent, to be wrong. Abugidas are like alphabets, but just written differently. Both can be just as consistent and just as arbitrary. In both scripts, on a computer, you write a consonant and a vowel, to get a consonant-vowel pair. The difference between an abugida and an alphabet is that the vowels combine with the consonants in an abugida sometimes, and they are free-standing in an alphabet. But from the core function of them, they work the same.
I listened to Misty Mountain Cold in Dwarvish last weekend and decided it would be cool to make a language that is meant to be sung over long distances, echoing in the caves. I stumbled onto these videos and I've been obsessed with working on this ever since. I wanted to use circles to make an Abugida. I would have loved to make my own script from scratch, but I wanted to be able to put it into a computer, so I was using google docs for the letters and copying them into google sheets where I could rotate them. That ended up failing because I couldn't rotate one letter, I had to rotate entire words. So I looked through a bunch of scripts and landed on Gurmukhi because it was written under a line. I assigned phonems to the letters and then noticed I had only three that would ever be at the end of each syllable and there were three letters that looked like another letter without the line on top so I reworked it. This is my fourth version of the script and I'm so happy with it. There's a link to the 1st and 2nd attempt in the doc with the 3rd attempt lower down in the doc. I just wanted to share because I find this so fascinating and the other day I spent 5 hours on this after work and didn't even notice that it was getting dark until 10 pm. docs.google.com/document/d/1BkatWr1qmrV9dxQm7Arz1ZZW9Ft98reAwAM7QN8rcyY/edit?usp=sharing I'm now starting on words. I have a few English words that I think would make sense if they originated from dwarves and were then adopted and changed by humans. Thank you for this, it's been a great jumping off point and way to learn about the things I don't know that I don't know.
”Far over the misty mountains cold To dungeons deep and caverns old We must away ere break of day To find our long-forgotten gold“ This comment warmed my heart, I'm so glad you were able to find something so captivating! I love the idea of your language to be spoken in caves, that's a real interesting challenge. From the Doc you've linked, it looks awesome, and I can't wait to see more. Keep at it!
The "no smoking" sign is not a logogram. Logograms represent words, that represents a concept or physical shape. That makes it an ideogram or pictogram. The same goes for male/female toilet signs, emojis and emoticons, hobo and occult symbols etc. These symbols are semiotic but not linguistic. To be a genuine 'writing system' symbols have to represent discrete elements of meaning interrelated by grammar, and in the case of most writing systems of natural languages they directly represent the spoken language structure, and only indirectly represent the meaning. In the case of logographies the representation is at the word level rather than any phonetic level, but it's still an element of the spoken language.
I understand what you mean, the no smoking sign and others like it aren't strictly logographs. I more used it as an example to show the idea of one and how it works and can be made, as they often start out as the shape of the idea they represent. It's easy for me to explain something using something already familiar.
@@Dracheneks There are some symbols used in association with English and other European languages that are genuinely logograms. Examples are &, @ and %. We can tell that % directly expresses the word "percent" because people sometimes express "percentage" as "%age". Other similar symbols, such as #, do not represent a particular word; they may be associated with some words (like "hash", "hashtag" or "number") but they relate more to general concepts and uses.
@@pentelegomenon1175 What examples, &, @ and %? It's a fact that we use those in writing in connection with particular spoken words, such as "and", "at" and "percent". To be ideograms they'd have to relate only to an idea, rather than any particular words.
@@MatthewMcVeagh I think that you are right, although Wikipedia states the opposite for some reason. However Wikipedia does correctly identify numeric digits as ideograms.
Fun fact: in danish (possibly other Scandinavian languages) the word for letters is 'bogstaver' where 'bog' means vertical in old norse and 'stav' means character or glyph
Doesn't Chinese have like less than 300 symbols? Then you combine them to make new ones. Take for example these three symbols: 共和國, stands for republic. But they consist of several smaller pieces: 艸八禾口囗戈口㇀ grass-divide-plant-mouth-enclosure-tool-mouth-rising. It's like a compound. Sure, it doesn't make sense for an untrained person, and I'll agree that it's a very long compound. But maybe this gives a better view that Chinese isn't as complicated as people make it up to be?
I believe so, yes, that's true. But how to combine the words to form other words should also be remembered in a standard way as sometimes the combinations are less than intuitive.
Your Hebrew letter shin example is correct for the proto-middle-late-modern progression, and there's a nice sanserif example (very modern) above, in the word bereshit. Your "fifth" very fancy example is not explained. So I will explain it. It's what's know as S"TAM, which is fancy calligraphy used on Torah scrolls and other formal religious materials. You'll note that the general form is closest to "late" Hebrew, which is the point of departure. This is simply a very formal, decorated form of the alphabet used to convey the special religious weight of certain texts - it's a kind of ritual calligraphy and when you see it, you know that it's telling you "this is holy text" (Note also that the sanserif is closer to "late" than it is to "modern") So that's another element you should consider more broadly: In modern English we use italics, we choose serif or sanserif fonts, we have humorous fonts for things like Halloween, and each form of the alphabet conveys a unique message of its own that lets the reader know a great deal about the text on sight before it is even read. Conlangs should consider this. Tolkein's Elvish writing, Tengwar, appears in several handwritings and fonts to perform exactly this function. Hebrew ALSO has a cursive form which is very different and preserves elements of "middle" writing, and has some unique forms of its own. Here is a cursive shin - the point being that conlangs might also have cursive! upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Hebrew_letter_Shin_handwriting.svg/28px-Hebrew_letter_Shin_handwriting.svg.png
That's really cool, thank you for that! Obviously, I've seen fonts and typefaces and different ways of writing scripts used to express some idea in a kind of informal environment, but never thought about it in the way it's used here. Thank you for the insight!
@@Dracheneks There are other elements to consider. Only European and very late Greek/Latin derivatives have capital vs lower case letters. Upper case developed from illuminated manuscripts in the early Middle Ages, we got capitals "by accident." Most alphabets ( abjads etc etc) don't make this distinction. They just have letters (Hebrew is like this, so are both Japanese syllabaries, all the Indian scripts, etc etc) Arabic is unusual (not unique as sometimes claimed) because it only has cursive - "block letter Arabic" isn't really a thing. Other languages have only one form, a form better considered to be block. Some have both.
I think it's highly possible that either of these could work well. Both hieroglyphs and cuneiform were logographic, and evolved into different alphabets afterwards. Depending on the anatomy of the penguins, they could possibly use their beaks or claws as styluses to etch into their chosen medium. I would personally say that hieroglyphs are more likely, since pressing a claw or beak flat into a material is difficult, however it's completely up to what you decide is best.
I'm one of those who claims alphabets, abugidas and abjads to be the same. The name only determines the way you write it. But the core concept is the same: you write one letter per sound. The abjad skips vowels, but you can do that in a Latin script too: Ltn scrpt. Abugida attached the vowels to consonants, but you can do that in a Latin script too: Lͣtͥn scrͥpt. In fact, some abugidas place some of the vowels after the consonant as a separate entity: தா (t·a) and is indistinguishable from an alphabet. But abugidas usually imply a basic a-sound, that is overridden by a vowel or no-vowel-making. Abjads have optional vowel diacritics that works kind of similar to an abugida. An alphabet is the pure, most versatile form you can have. You simply write each sound in order, from the first one. Then letter combination can be used to define sounds you don't have a letter for. Like using sh/sch instead of š/ş. Anything you can write in an alphabet, abugida and impure abjad, you can write in any of the other two. Just define a 1:1 correspondence, and it'll work without issue. Showing that they're closely related. Logographic scripts, and syllabary have more information baked into each symbol, and you can't simply make these into letters. You have whole syllables baked into one symbol, that's not how an alphabet works. Then a featural script have a design idea behind it, which will be lost when converted to any other script; Hangul is written in syllable blocks, and having each shape represent the sound you make. So what I'm trying to say is that alphabets, abugidas and impure abjads are so closely linked together, and works basically the same, so saying they are very different and that one is consistent, one can do certain things, or that one works better for a language is simply not true. You have the 1:1 link that breaks those arguments.
I agree that abugidas and abjads are really types of alphabet, rather than something other than alphabets. But I don't agree they all work equally well for any language. Abjads really don't work well with any kind of language except the Semitic with its triconsonantal root system. Abugidas don't work very well with languages where consonants are routinely not followed by a vowel.
Your tamil example of தா isn’t as simple as you think though, த்+ஆ=தா(t+ā=tā) As you can see the glyph for ā changes when it’s modifying the consonant.. Infact I think abugidas could be considered as syllabary too. தா is considered as a single letter, not two letters. I don’t read it as t+ā, I just see it as tā. I’d say abugidas( or alphasyllabaries) are syllabaries more than alphabets
Also hangeul is also just an alphabet arranged in syllable blocks... the glyphs used in hangeul were created based on the features of the sound they make but I don’t think featural is a different category on its own
I do believe logograms and ideograms are very, very similar, and Chinese uses them both. Radicals are smaller parts of their characters. Here's a good website explaining radicals: www.clozemaster.com/blog/chinese-radicals/
The video was a really long time ago so I hope you respond, but would you be okay with me taking notes and putting it on a google docs for all of the conlang videos just to keep the ideas clear and easier for me to learn?
@@Dracheneks also the language in my comic is for a fictional race I created are called 'Pajarians' they live in cities that are futuristic but also still has trees and I think the language would be like wind currents or something would the my conlang be angular,curvy or both?
![ARGENTINA vs. CHILE [3-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 7](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/De3AWmXzhuA/mqdefault.jpg)
I've made the decision to create a *logography* for my *polysynthetic* conlang.
Probably not the smartest idea, but I think it will be an interesting challenge.
Challenges are an excellent way to learn! However don't be deterred if something goes wrong. There are always people who can help!
Per se there's no reason why it couldn't work, bit it'd have to work differently from Chinese.
I've thought about this, and I think you could have a major ideogram for the word root and smaller, simpler symbols for each affix. It would be a bit like Japanese with kanji for the lexical element and hiragana for the grammar. Just with more emphasis on the latter.
Same
Oof! Yeah, there is a reason why learning Japanese is so damn hard. Spoken Japanese is relatively simple, but written is a nightmare and effectively two writing systems at once...
I mean... I made a 59-glyph syllabary for two (C)(C)(C)V(C)(C) conlangs with quite complex inventories. Soooo...
Important thing to consider is that certain scripts will fit a language better depending on its grammar and phonology:
Abjads work very well for Semitic languages bc they have short root words made up of only a couple of consonants that are then put into set grammatical templates.
That and Semitic languages have very predictable vowels, so after you get the hang of how a word is pronounced you don't really need to mark the vowels in it.
Abjad wouldn't work at all for Slavic languages for example, bc they have root words that stay together and you attach prefixes and suffixes to them and many of these root words differ by only a single vowel eg. "Sąd" means "court (of law)" in Polish but "Sad" means "orchard". For Slavic languages precision is needed, and they also tend to have long consonant clusters (especially West Slavic languages like Polish or Czech) so for them an alphabet is the perfect writing system, and they all have mostly consistent spelling.
But for a language like Hindi an Abugida is a much better choice bc its words are built of consonant vowel pairs, some words ending in a consonant, lots of consonant-vowel combinations...
Having a system that cares mostly about consonants but also has a way to differentiate between different possible syllables suits it and many other languages of India very well.
What wouldn't suit it would be a Syllabary, bc then you'd have to create HUNDREDS of individual characters for every possible consonant-vowel pairing in the language.
This is why it fits languages with very strict syllable structure like Japanese. There are only so many possible syllables in Japanese and all words are (V-)CV-CV-CV(-n) with no exceptions.
Japanese though has many historical and grammatical quirks that made it end up with three writing systems all at once: two Syllabaies and some 50 thousand Logographs...
A similar language that doesn't suffer from this is Korean, which uses a Featural script (Hangul) that works like an alphabet where letters form syllable blocks, which works really well with Korean phonotactics and grammar and such, bc it didn't evolve naturally but was created by a group of VERY intelligent people on the order of King Sejong the Great.
The only real reason why most languages today don't use featural scripts is bc it'd be REALLY hard to implement in real life, especially with global languages like English where different dialects can have wildly different pronunciations- to the point where certain words would be unreadable between dialects if it used a featural script (was written how the word is pronounced).
To those who’s watching, it’s ‘hiragana’, not hirigana like it’s misspelled here.
Other than that, great video, simple and to-the-point! I love your series!
Yikes I probably should have checked that one more xD Thank you for the correction!
And thank you for the feedback, I'm very glad you enjoy it!
You are the first source I've found about conlangs
Welcome to the community! I hope i have been a useful source and have helped with starting your conlanging adventure!
I recommend you Artifexian, Bibliardon and Worldbuilding Notes also, they are really good
(2:50, 4:00) I find your arguments that abugidas are inherently consistent and alphabets to be inconsistent, to be wrong. Abugidas are like alphabets, but just written differently. Both can be just as consistent and just as arbitrary. In both scripts, on a computer, you write a consonant and a vowel, to get a consonant-vowel pair. The difference between an abugida and an alphabet is that the vowels combine with the consonants in an abugida sometimes, and they are free-standing in an alphabet. But from the core function of them, they work the same.
I listened to Misty Mountain Cold in Dwarvish last weekend and decided it would be cool to make a language that is meant to be sung over long distances, echoing in the caves. I stumbled onto these videos and I've been obsessed with working on this ever since.
I wanted to use circles to make an Abugida. I would have loved to make my own script from scratch, but I wanted to be able to put it into a computer, so I was using google docs for the letters and copying them into google sheets where I could rotate them. That ended up failing because I couldn't rotate one letter, I had to rotate entire words. So I looked through a bunch of scripts and landed on Gurmukhi because it was written under a line. I assigned phonems to the letters and then noticed I had only three that would ever be at the end of each syllable and there were three letters that looked like another letter without the line on top so I reworked it. This is my fourth version of the script and I'm so happy with it. There's a link to the 1st and 2nd attempt in the doc with the 3rd attempt lower down in the doc. I just wanted to share because I find this so fascinating and the other day I spent 5 hours on this after work and didn't even notice that it was getting dark until 10 pm.
docs.google.com/document/d/1BkatWr1qmrV9dxQm7Arz1ZZW9Ft98reAwAM7QN8rcyY/edit?usp=sharing
I'm now starting on words. I have a few English words that I think would make sense if they originated from dwarves and were then adopted and changed by humans. Thank you for this, it's been a great jumping off point and way to learn about the things I don't know that I don't know.
”Far over the misty mountains cold
To dungeons deep and caverns old
We must away ere break of day
To find our long-forgotten gold“
This comment warmed my heart, I'm so glad you were able to find something so captivating!
I love the idea of your language to be spoken in caves, that's a real interesting challenge.
From the Doc you've linked, it looks awesome, and I can't wait to see more.
Keep at it!
The "no smoking" sign is not a logogram. Logograms represent words, that represents a concept or physical shape. That makes it an ideogram or pictogram. The same goes for male/female toilet signs, emojis and emoticons, hobo and occult symbols etc. These symbols are semiotic but not linguistic. To be a genuine 'writing system' symbols have to represent discrete elements of meaning interrelated by grammar, and in the case of most writing systems of natural languages they directly represent the spoken language structure, and only indirectly represent the meaning. In the case of logographies the representation is at the word level rather than any phonetic level, but it's still an element of the spoken language.
I understand what you mean, the no smoking sign and others like it aren't strictly logographs. I more used it as an example to show the idea of one and how it works and can be made, as they often start out as the shape of the idea they represent. It's easy for me to explain something using something already familiar.
@@Dracheneks There are some symbols used in association with English and other European languages that are genuinely logograms. Examples are &, @ and %. We can tell that % directly expresses the word "percent" because people sometimes express "percentage" as "%age". Other similar symbols, such as #, do not represent a particular word; they may be associated with some words (like "hash", "hashtag" or "number") but they relate more to general concepts and uses.
@@MatthewMcVeagh Aren't those examples mostly ideograms?
@@pentelegomenon1175 What examples, &, @ and %? It's a fact that we use those in writing in connection with particular spoken words, such as "and", "at" and "percent". To be ideograms they'd have to relate only to an idea, rather than any particular words.
@@MatthewMcVeagh I think that you are right, although Wikipedia states the opposite for some reason. However Wikipedia does correctly identify numeric digits as ideograms.
I didn't have to research stress. I live in it
Fun fact: in danish (possibly other Scandinavian languages) the word for letters is 'bogstaver' where 'bog' means vertical in old norse and 'stav' means character or glyph
That's really interesting! I never knew that!
Reminds me of German, where the word for letter is "Buchstab" which literally means "Book Stab".
I made my own type. It dosent have a name yet but the de-facto one is the feutural sylabarry-abugida
Doesn't Chinese have like less than 300 symbols? Then you combine them to make new ones. Take for example these three symbols: 共和國, stands for republic. But they consist of several smaller pieces: 艸八禾口囗戈口㇀ grass-divide-plant-mouth-enclosure-tool-mouth-rising. It's like a compound. Sure, it doesn't make sense for an untrained person, and I'll agree that it's a very long compound. But maybe this gives a better view that Chinese isn't as complicated as people make it up to be?
I believe so, yes, that's true. But how to combine the words to form other words should also be remembered in a standard way as sometimes the combinations are less than intuitive.
Shavian is built to be universal, but you write it with your own accent
Thevorian's Scriot is based on Greek, and is an Alphabet. I would show it (you can type it on computer), but I'm lazy.
Your Hebrew letter shin example is correct for the proto-middle-late-modern progression, and there's a nice sanserif example (very modern) above, in the word bereshit. Your "fifth" very fancy example is not explained. So I will explain it. It's what's know as S"TAM, which is fancy calligraphy used on Torah scrolls and other formal religious materials. You'll note that the general form is closest to "late" Hebrew, which is the point of departure. This is simply a very formal, decorated form of the alphabet used to convey the special religious weight of certain texts - it's a kind of ritual calligraphy and when you see it, you know that it's telling you "this is holy text" (Note also that the sanserif is closer to "late" than it is to "modern")
So that's another element you should consider more broadly: In modern English we use italics, we choose serif or sanserif fonts, we have humorous fonts for things like Halloween, and each form of the alphabet conveys a unique message of its own that lets the reader know a great deal about the text on sight before it is even read.
Conlangs should consider this. Tolkein's Elvish writing, Tengwar, appears in several handwritings and fonts to perform exactly this function.
Hebrew ALSO has a cursive form which is very different and preserves elements of "middle" writing, and has some unique forms of its own. Here is a cursive shin - the point being that conlangs might also have cursive!
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Hebrew_letter_Shin_handwriting.svg/28px-Hebrew_letter_Shin_handwriting.svg.png
That's really cool, thank you for that!
Obviously, I've seen fonts and typefaces and different ways of writing scripts used to express some idea in a kind of informal environment, but never thought about it in the way it's used here.
Thank you for the insight!
@@Dracheneks There are other elements to consider. Only European and very late Greek/Latin derivatives have capital vs lower case letters. Upper case developed from illuminated manuscripts in the early Middle Ages, we got capitals "by accident." Most alphabets ( abjads etc etc) don't make this distinction. They just have letters (Hebrew is like this, so are both Japanese syllabaries, all the Indian scripts, etc etc)
Arabic is unusual (not unique as sometimes claimed) because it only has cursive - "block letter Arabic" isn't really a thing. Other languages have only one form, a form better considered to be block. Some have both.
i’m stumped, do you think penguins would write in cuneiform or egyption heiroglyphs?
I think it's highly possible that either of these could work well. Both hieroglyphs and cuneiform were logographic, and evolved into different alphabets afterwards.
Depending on the anatomy of the penguins, they could possibly use their beaks or claws as styluses to etch into their chosen medium. I would personally say that hieroglyphs are more likely, since pressing a claw or beak flat into a material is difficult, however it's completely up to what you decide is best.
I'm one of those who claims alphabets, abugidas and abjads to be the same. The name only determines the way you write it. But the core concept is the same: you write one letter per sound. The abjad skips vowels, but you can do that in a Latin script too: Ltn scrpt. Abugida attached the vowels to consonants, but you can do that in a Latin script too: Lͣtͥn scrͥpt. In fact, some abugidas place some of the vowels after the consonant as a separate entity: தா (t·a) and is indistinguishable from an alphabet. But abugidas usually imply a basic a-sound, that is overridden by a vowel or no-vowel-making. Abjads have optional vowel diacritics that works kind of similar to an abugida.
An alphabet is the pure, most versatile form you can have. You simply write each sound in order, from the first one. Then letter combination can be used to define sounds you don't have a letter for. Like using sh/sch instead of š/ş. Anything you can write in an alphabet, abugida and impure abjad, you can write in any of the other two. Just define a 1:1 correspondence, and it'll work without issue. Showing that they're closely related.
Logographic scripts, and syllabary have more information baked into each symbol, and you can't simply make these into letters. You have whole syllables baked into one symbol, that's not how an alphabet works. Then a featural script have a design idea behind it, which will be lost when converted to any other script; Hangul is written in syllable blocks, and having each shape represent the sound you make.
So what I'm trying to say is that alphabets, abugidas and impure abjads are so closely linked together, and works basically the same, so saying they are very different and that one is consistent, one can do certain things, or that one works better for a language is simply not true. You have the 1:1 link that breaks those arguments.
I agree that abugidas and abjads are really types of alphabet, rather than something other than alphabets. But I don't agree they all work equally well for any language. Abjads really don't work well with any kind of language except the Semitic with its triconsonantal root system. Abugidas don't work very well with languages where consonants are routinely not followed by a vowel.
Your tamil example of தா isn’t as simple as you think though, த்+ஆ=தா(t+ā=tā)
As you can see the glyph for ā changes when it’s modifying the consonant..
Infact I think abugidas could be considered as syllabary too. தா is considered as a single letter, not two letters. I don’t read it as t+ā, I just see it as tā. I’d say abugidas( or alphasyllabaries) are syllabaries more than alphabets
Also hangeul is also just an alphabet arranged in syllable blocks... the glyphs used in hangeul were created based on the features of the sound they make but I don’t think featural is a different category on its own
3:40
devanagari in indian LANGUAGES
im so sorry, i had to 🥲
very nice video! :)
Thank you very much!
I was under the impression that Chinese scripts are made of ideograms and radicals, not logograms.
I do believe logograms and ideograms are very, very similar, and Chinese uses them both. Radicals are smaller parts of their characters. Here's a good website explaining radicals: www.clozemaster.com/blog/chinese-radicals/
The video was a really long time ago so I hope you respond, but would you be okay with me taking notes and putting it on a google docs for all of the conlang videos just to keep the ideas clear and easier for me to learn?
Absolutely, feel free to do so!
Yes
Could you help me to create a writing system/scripts?
U da best!
I'm making a conlang for a comic I'm making what are the recommended scripts?
If it's for a comic, I suggest Latin, however if you plan to not use it then any you'd like!
@@Dracheneks thanks!
@@Dracheneks also the language in my comic is for a fictional race I created are called 'Pajarians' they live in cities that are futuristic but also still has trees and I think the language would be like wind currents or something would the my conlang be angular,curvy or both?
I would say that you could make it flowy and curvy, but uniform.
@@Dracheneks what's uniform?
These are some tasty beans right here
you're losing me