Talk:Constructed writing system

Untitled

Artifical is a bad word to use here. It's prejudicial; to say that one thing is "natural" and another "artifical" is usually to give preference to the first. It's not really accurate; writing is something that distinguishes us from the animals, and hence all writing is artifical. Even in the sense that you give, most scripts are artifical. Cyrillic has a distinct point of origin by one person; so do many of the scripts of India. What's the gain of lumping Cherokee, Cyrillic and Cirth together, and contrasting them with Greek and Chinese? --Prosfilaes 05:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This issue could be described in the article. What is the preferred term of writing systems scholars? Deh 14:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to use the term "conscript" here, as if it were normal usage for a reader unfamiliar with such jargon? Ben 22:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see an actual academic source using that term. 97.82.193.208 (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The term is quasi-defined at the top of the page (as a parenthesized implied synonym). But if it bothers you, why not replace each use with 'constructed script'? Deh 14:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will, but I wanted to wait a day or so in case somebody objected. Ben 19:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Turambar10. Peer reviewers: Elenalvid, Luccamagalhaes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Japanese

I'm looking at the Japanese article through Bablefish, and it looks like it has a number of cool Oriental scripts that this article doesn't have. Unfortunately, since Bablefish does hilarious things to Japanese, and it's not a language that I can produce anything from even armed with a dictionary. Is there anyone who knows Japanese that can even produce a summary of what that article may have on Oriental conscripting?--Prosfilaes 16:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I know a little Japanese. Here's my translation of their list:

• NOXILO script (from the auxlang NOXILO, see [1])
• Tengwar
• Cirth
• Jindaimoji (with 4 sub-versions) (probably faked ancestral Japanese writing system)
• Deseret
• Visual Speech
• Unifon
• Alphabet 26 (?)
• Shavian
• Abh
• Hunter Script, from Hunter x Hunter manga
• "Enoku" language (Enok? Enoch?)
• Klingon
• Rint (from TV show Kamen Rider Kuuga) (check out the Other Links on [2])
• Gurongi (from same show, no ja wikipedia page)
• 異界 script, from anime Final Fantasy Unlimited
• Gilgamesh script, from anime Armored Trooper Votoms
• Grados script, from anime SPT Layzner
• 神部 script, from anime Mashin Eiyuden Wataru
• 星界 script, from same show
• Zentraedi script, from anime Macross
• Namek script, from manga Dragonball
• Gargoyle script, from game Ultima VI
• Xevi script, from game Xevious
• Hyrule script, from game Legend of Zelda
• Digi script, from Digimon game and anime
• D'ni from Myst

--DenisMoskowitz 14:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Alphabet 26, IIRC, is a 1960's (?) monocase Latin alphabet/font. Relatively uninteresting. Thanks for the translation.--Prosfilaes 22:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Enoku probably refers to John Dee's Enochian alphabet. Most of the examples from anime don't seem to be coherent writing systems. — Gwalla | Talk 22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence breaks off in the middle

Under Tolkien: "While this is the most" and that's all. Put into the article by "Paperflowergirl". AnonMoos 23:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Under consideration by Unicode"

The Tolkien scripts seem to be under indefinite consideration by Unicode, never advancing in the approval process (as far as can be determined from publicly-accessible info). But there's a famous anecdote that Tolkien script files included with a 1970's-era plotting or typesetting software package (as a hackish joke) caused great bafflement among German users of the program... AnonMoos 23:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

John Malone - Unifon

I guess John Malone who created Unifon isn't the same one as the Liberty Media guy? --213.47.109.179 12:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyrillic

"Not much is known about the inventors of other scripts, though Cyrillic was (according to myth) created by St. Cyril." This seems to be at least partially nonsense; Cyril created the Glagolitic alphabet, but the Cyrillic was named for him by one of his disciples. See Cyrillic alphabet#History or early Cyrillic alphabet. -Octavo 17:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

evolution ?

Scripts don't 'naturally evolve'; they mutate through political forces; when outstanding users introduce new elements to an existing system. --Newepoch 15:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

==Duh

I'm glad we have this article: like, ALL scripts are artifical. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of this article?

This article is worthless as others have pointed out. There are no references to actual peer reviewed journals or articles likely because this distinction between "natural" and "artificial" scripts is arbitrary. Aside from the 3 or four inventions of writing, I doubt any commonly used scripts today were created by accident--rather by intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.32 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

IPA "invented" or you mean "inveRted" letters ?

IPA "invented" or you mean "inveRted" letters ?

Someone needs to check this out and maybe correct it.

I mean IPA has a lot of inveRted=turned around/over letters, but it could contain "invented"=made-up ones too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.151.213 (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Tengwar and Cirth

'As of 2010...' What is the current situation, five years later? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Now, ten years later, there's still been no movement.[3]

Unreferenced

This article is unreferenced, as was already noted by other people.

I am trying to find a precise definition of this term in external sources.

If I can't find it in a week or two, I'll propose this article, as well as List of constructed scripts for deletion. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That this article needs some work is clear, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. And not everything that doesn't have a clear-cut definition is non-notable. Looking online, there seems to be sufficient published material on the topic.

Still, Sanders writes ‘...known natural writing systems like the Greek alphabet and the Chinese logosyllabary evolved in a largely organic and gradual way, rather than being intentionally designed as a complete writing system in a short period of time.’ [Punske, Sanders & Fountain 2020]

As for the real problems there are, have a look at List of creators of writing systems or List of writing systems where many of the included items are not real, not scripts or non-notable. But I don't see you complain there. By the way, a big risk of deleting an overarching article is that the entire history of article itself and the associated talk page disappear, and I believe that quite a few of the articles linked in these overarching topic articles should probably be deleted. Delete these articles and the useful part is gone while the cruft remains hidden under the radar. This seems counter-productive to me. It also makes merging good material from the deleted articles impossible.

Finally, it is impolite to threaten here to delete another article. Not everyone on that article watches this one; indeed I didn't and I only just now stumbled upon this. Especially so since List of constructed scripts is significantly better curated than at least the other lists I mentioned and it clearly doesn't deserve deletion.