Lots of people agree to disagree with this, certainly. ;-) My objection that a purely logographic script makes it impossible to render Foreign proper names was never at all convincingly dealt with, IMPO, and we _know_ that the God Learners did this by the bucketload, one assumes in Western. (Unless they used the even-more-controversial Tradetalk.)
Admittedly it _could_ be logosyllabic, which would finesse the above objection. That seems to be a somewhat ad hoc fix, though.
> but most other scripts are either syllabic or alphabetic
> (since these types of scripts are really more practical).
Syllabic script are only practical where one has a relatively small number of distinct syllables to represent (raise your hand, Japanese). Though I have no objection to Gloriously Impractical writing systems where they much some sort of mythic sense, personally.
> Someone ought to use Aztec-style rebus writing (which is probably
> classified logosyllabic?), because it's weird and impractical -- I
> propose Kralorela, just to make them less Chinese.
That may or may not have merit as a suggestion, but as a line of reasoning, I find it truly awful. Let's remove thing [X] from culture [Y] because it's too much like its RW "analogue", and instead let's just turn [Y] into an ad hoc mish-mash of ideas equally borrowed from the RW, but without regard to any sort of thematic, mythic, or logical unity.
If someone had a line of reasoning with the same conclusion, but which could honestly claim to be making it "more like Kralorela", and not simply "less like China", then more power to 'em, of course.
> And we know that the Pelandan script isn't alphabetic, based on some
> comments in Entekosiad (it may well be logosyllabic).
So far as I know, it seems to be purely logographic. Pointers to any apparently phonetic-syllablic elements will be noted...
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail