Izigo Logography & Syllabary

[MrKrov]

I want opinions on the general appearance of the first 126 potential glyphs (whose meanings will be predominately withheld for now) for a logography & syllabary. Some are more pictorial, some are more of the fossilized ligature of syllable graphemes persuasion. Any particularly liked? Disliked? Any recommended adjustments to certain glyphs? Other?

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

The syllabary's for another day here now.
I believe I'll stick with the new name"Eymar"Izigo for at least a while.

Consider this defunct. I'll make a new thread for when I get ~500 characters of the new logography (sufficiently different in appearance and composition to warrant one)

[Ossicone]

The only concern I have at the moment is the stroke count for the numbers 5-10. But it's not unreasonable, I'd just want them to be simpler.

Also, I feel like there are two different styles here. Some symbols are round while others are sharp. You'd probably want to choose one or the other depending on how they're writing.

[Thakowsaizmu]

I pretty much second what Ossicone said. But as this is a beta, it looks really good so far.

[MrKrov]

@Ossicone: I don't know what you mean since the only round ones I see include an o piece, or 97 and 102 which are ligatures of syllables.
(Well, 48 [The half-moon thing with the line] should've had 2 more noticeably diagonal lines but that was one just error.)

[zelos]

I dont like it, looks too chinese =/

[Ossicone]

Well I think the circles are the main issue. What are they using to write?

If they're using something that allows for curves, you'd expect more rounding elsewhere. Like on the one labelled 'foot/leg' or '55.' Why bother to make pointy corners if you don't have to? Or why do a square box, which minimally two gestures, when you can do a circle which is one?

[MrKrov]

I'm going to say pens. Fine, I'll make a squared up version and a rounded up version for comparison.

I dont like it, looks too chinese =/

Damn Chinese and their monopoly on square lines and boxes.

[eldin raigmore]

I dont like it, looks too chinese =/

Not to say "I don't like it", but:
I do think many of them look very similar to Hanzi or kanji.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It's up to you to tell us, IMO, rather than the other way around.

---------------------------------------------

Is your ultimate system going to be a "radical-and-determiner" system?
Will it have a semantic radical and a phonetic determiner or some such thing?
If so, your syllabary can supply the phonetic determiners.

Or, are you going to use the syllabaries to show the inflectional morphemes, and use the logograms to show the roots?

[MrKrov]

Maybe the rounded version will be better?
Semantic determiners, yes.
Phonetic determiners besides syllable gyphs, yes but limited to indicators of things like liaison.
Syllabary: invariant inflectional morphemes, probably a few small words
Logograms: roots, yes plus inflectional morphemes with variable allomorphs.

The squared version

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

The rounded version

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I did tweak and replace a few. I'm partial to the new 9.

[xinda]

The rounding looks a lot better. You could even go crazy replacing all four way perpendicular intersections with something like this maybe?

[Ossicone]

Yes, they both look more consistent now. I like the rounded version. It reminds me of ye olde chinese writing and some of them are quite mayan-esque.

[MrKrov]

Mayan-esque?

I think 123's gonna takeover 18's place.

[Ossicone]

Yeah, certain ones look like mayan before they're combined. Like 12 or 22.

[MrKrov]

Damn Mayans and their boxes with rounded corners and boxes within more boxes.

Should have the next bunch ready within a couple weeks.

[Yačay256]

Your logogrammy looks like a fusion of cuneiform and the Chinese Clerical Script. Are the taxograms, the determinatives, different from the logograms, as in the Egyptian scripts, or the same, as in cuneiform or the Chinese scripts? How do your phonetic complements work?

[MrKrov]

I'll say basically the same for the semantic determiners.
Phonetic complements: Determiners for gemination or liaison of trills/approximants.

Prob'ly worth mentioning that root coda consonants wouldn't be repeated in the subsequent syllabogram.
Ex: KAG representing a potential root written in a logogram, and -as a suffix to be written in syllabograms, the word would be written KAG-a-sa and not KAG-ga-sa. (Hello subtractive solution for determining codas.)

[Yačay256]

Where are taxograms placed in the Beta script; do they precede or follow the word or are they conflated with the word's glyph(s)?

[MrKrov]

In a 2X2 square representing a glyph, the right half would be determiners, if any, and if there is both a semantic determiner and phonetic determiner, the semantic one goes on top, phonetic on bottom.
You don't need to capitalize beta.

[Brain]

Just a personal opinion here, but I think some of them look like house appliances rather than characters. I like the ones with a lower stroke count as they look more abstract and I think the rounded version looks better.

[MrKrov]

House appliances?