Pamrelfya a'Eoio

['Oma Tirea]

Fko tsun tsive'a pxel sanhì pxaw ayoeng, krr a lapo new kllkivä na'rìngmì tawftu, ulte zeyko skxomit fpi swoka syulang atxan

/long-ish test sentence for every letter

[Ikran Ahiyìk]

I still don't know why the combination suddenly breaks in the subtitles in this font..

[eejmensenikbenhet]

Fko tsun tsive'a pxel sanhì pxaw ayoeng, krr a lapo new kllkivä na'rìngmì tawftu, ulte zeyko skxomit fpi swoka syulang atxan

/long-ish test sentence for every letter

The PxePx, KxeKx, TxeTx and Tsä should be written B, Q, D, C respectively to get the right 'eoio-symbol.
EDIT: I forgot one: NgeNg should be written G.

In the scheme above, there are symbols for 'LL, 'RR and the diphtongs (AW, AY, EW, EY), as well for the numbers. However, these are not included in the font are they?

[Prrton]

I still don't know why the combination suddenly breaks in the subtitles in this font..

Only the ay of ayoeng is not rendering properly on my screen—but I suspect that may be a design limitation in what the font (technology) is capable of.

I get:

  ayoeng

When I would expect (ideally):

  ay oeng

Otherwise the behavior/display is unchanged for me.

Kemaweyanur txele latsu.

Maybe it's just a code table tweak...? [hopes...]

Spoiler: Image of what I see.

[Tirea Aean]

The PxePx, KxeKx, TxeTx and Tsä should be written B, Q, D, C respectively to get the right 'eoio-symbol.
EDIT: I forgot one: NgeNg should be written G.

This is not true. They do not have to be that way. it shows up just fine for me when using it the way he did.

In the scheme above, there are symbols for 'LL, 'RR and the diphtongs (AW, AY, EW, EY), as well for the numbers. However, these are not included in the font are they?

the diphtongs and ll and rr indeed show up as glyph stacks for me in the font. They're in there.

I'm not sure about the numbers.. last I checked, they look like the normal numbers: 0123456789

[eejmensenikbenhet]

The PxePx, KxeKx, TxeTx and Tsä should be written B, Q, D, C respectively to get the right 'eoio-symbol.
EDIT: I forgot one: NgeNg should be written G.

This is not true. They do not have to be that way. it shows up just fine for me when using it the way he did.

In the scheme above, there are symbols for 'LL, 'RR and the diphtongs (AW, AY, EW, EY), as well for the numbers. However, these are not included in the font are they?

the diphtongs and ll and rr indeed show up as glyph stacks for me in the font. They're in there.

I'm not sure about the numbers.. last I checked, they look like the normal numbers: 0123456789

Can you post a screenshot of what you see here?

kx q px b tx d ts c ng g ll rr

[Tirea Aean]

for the record, you wrote this:

[font=eoio][size=18pt]kx q px b tx d ts c ng g ll rr[/size][/font]

They are exactly the same and/or all exist correctly.

Spoiler: what I see

[eejmensenikbenhet]

Okay... I probably have an old version or something.

Spoiler: This is what I see:

[Tirea Aean]

which browser, OS, and font version do you have?

[eejmensenikbenhet]

Browser: IE
OS: Windows 7
Font Version: 1.010

[Tirea Aean]

Browser: IE
OS: Windows 7
Font Version: 1.010

THERE'S your problem. Internet Explorer. how is that surprising? XD

AS for me, I have:

Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narhwal
The latest Google Chrome
and THIS version of the font. (which is the latest, as I am aware)

[eejmensenikbenhet]

Yeah... Something I thought already after seeing this post from Le'eylan (and expecially the picture):

My chrome seems to hate 'Eoio. It makes it look weird :C
Explorer likes it though.
Time for you computer nerds to tell me what the problem is..  

[Tirea Aean]

are you on the latest version of Chrome and Firefox as well as sure that you have the latest font? it looks really nice crisp and pretty for me.

EDIT: Here is a pic on Windows 7 64 bit with latest Google chrome and the same version of the font I just posted.

[morismano7782]

A big Wou indeed Stunned then again, this is from yet another one of the so-called Na'vi nì'aw fratsenge sute ngana....

[eejmensenikbenhet]

Just as I did Famrel test-writings (go to that topic for those images), I did 'Eoio test writings with a dip pen and some black ink.
Pictures from my webcam in the attachments.

[Prrton]

Just as I did Famrel test-writings (go to that topic for those images), I did 'Eoio test writings with a dip pen and some black ink.
Pictures from my webcam in the attachments.

I'm very pleased to see someone else's handwriting. I'm quite interested in collaborating with those who are interested in figuring out a semi-formalized handwriting style for 'Eoio that might even become a separate font. I don't think that this would be something that the Na'vi would likely have pre-sawtute, but I can see it emerging out of "cultural contamination". As long as we see it that way, I think it could be an interesting intellectual and design exercise.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Maybe it is just because Famrel/FamrelaWin is made by me, but I really don't think that the Na'vi would use a plain alphabet like 'Eoio except, well, for ceremonial things where cumbersome writing isn't an issue. 'Eoio takes up a lot of space and is hard to read at small sizes. Plus a cursive 'Eoio style would be even more difficult. (though of course the Mayans used an alphabet cumbersome beyond imagination (one letter takes 10+ secs to write))

For the very strict syllable structure of Na'vi an alphabet would be redundant and a syllabary too hard to memorize. I think that Famrel for calligraphy and FamrelaWin for long inscriptions or books would be great.

'Eoio sure looks better for logos though. Perhaps it's just because it has a way more polished font (Famrel uses simple quadratic curves and FamrelaWin straight lines).

[Tsmuktengan]

I will personally stick to Na'vi with usual letters. But if you want for these characters to be readable, I think you should use the same writing style as for Chinese, Japanese and Corean charcters : spaces characters written carefully one after one. Because a linked handwriting like we do use with our letters here seems very difficult to read. 

[Prrton]

Maybe it is just because Famrel/FamrelaWin is made by me, but I really don't think that the Na'vi would use a plain alphabet like 'Eoio except, well, for ceremonial things where cumbersome writing isn't an issue.

While I don't feel that 'Eoio is 'cumbersome' per se, it was not conceived or created for utilitarian purposes. Granted. I also don't understand your apparent disdain for alphabets. They are a very natural evolution of orthographic systems that must deal handily with languages that rely heavily on both vowels and consonants (and particularly consonants) in coda (VC, CVC). ANYTHING else can easily become quite unwieldy.

'Eoio takes up a lot of space and is hard to read at small sizes.

Again, Eoio (‹‹‹ the technical name for the font due to human (North American)-imposed limitations) was not designed to be optimized for bookmaking in 21st Century 'Rrta. But, that said. It is perfectly legible out of my laser printer at 9, 10, 11 points. I also have ZERO trouble reading it at 10pt. on MY 13" MacBook Pro screen in Safari.

   Oeri fì'u lu tsukinan nìftue.  ‹‹‹ raw text



However, that said, Kemaweyan and I did do a few thing to Eoio to make it more legible at smaller sizes. That's why the I and Ì are raised above the shoulder line.

Plus a cursive 'Eoio style would be even more difficult. (though of course the Mayans used an alphabet cumbersome beyond imagination (one letter takes 10+ secs to write))

The Maya did not write cursively per se. Even when they worked in ink, they were very precise in terms of capturing strokes. However, if they had ever formed a cursive, it is very likely that that style would have been much more difficult to read than the monolithic forms on which it would likely ultimately have been based. This is universal to a large extent. The very purpose of cursive is to get the words on some material as quickly and fluidly as possible with minimum fatigue to the hand of the writer. This will always produce a simplifying effect on the characteristics of individual letters (glyphs/symbols) that make them more distinct and legible. That is why I say above that a semi-formalized specification for how the very angular strokes of 'Eoio (as a system) become cursive would be required. Just as cursive Roman today is different in North America and France, some degree of consensus and teaching/learning would be required for any variation to become approachable.

             

        ‹‹‹ easier to read - - - - - - easier to write ›››

For the very strict syllable structure of Na'vi an alphabet would be redundant...

The use of the adjective 'redundant' here makes no sense to me at all unless you're comparing 'Eoio (as a system) to the Roman alphabet in which both this word and fìlì'u are typed. Is that what you mean? Is your intention to create something as exotic as possible? If you are asserting that Famrel is more interesting or artistically valid than 'Eoio because you are calling it a "reverse abugida" (a term that I first suggested about an approach that 'Oma Tirea proposed some time ago), I don't agree, but I validate your difference of opinion. Famrel is also essentially an alphabet. It's merely read in waves as opposed to a straight line. In a true abugida the positions (order in linear sequence) of the vocalic diacritics (while standardized) are not "in order". In Thai, for example, the E- and AI-vowels proceed the consonants. EU- and I- come above as does a short-A. U-vowels go beneath their consonants. Long back vowels follow and some of the vowels and diphthongs 'wrap' their consonants with multiple parts. Famrel has nothing that is remotely so "alien". Rotating the consonants in coda (beneath the vowels) adds an air of visual complexity that contributes to a sense of exoticism, but it also makes the system a tiny bit less legible at the same time because the brain has to do more processing to reconcile the 180° difference.

...and a syllabary too hard to memorize.

It would contain more than 8,000 distinct syllables if it were done in a logical, ambiguity-averse way. The learning process would be quite time-consuming.

I think that Famrel for calligraphy and FamrelaWin for long inscriptions or books would be great.

I don't disagree, unless you're simultaneously asserting in a competitive fashion that then 'Eoio (and any other system that any other member or members of the Community might come up with) should then be relegated to a niche that you define so that your creation might dominate.

In all honesty, I feel that what you've designed as FamrelaWin is much better composed and overall proportionally more attractive than the original Famrel. If I were you, I would revisit the physical design of the quadratic curve-based glyphs in the original and their spatial relationships to each other. It has the potential to become much more aesthetically pleasing than it is in your initial offering in my opinion. Your system is sound and visually original. I admire it and have embraced it as much as anyone else in terms of using it in posts. But, as a member of the Community I am a bit uncomfortable with some of the linguistic implications in the naming of the topic which introduced it TO the Community. 'Positioning' your system as the alternative to 'Eoio, comes across as a marketing strategy to me. (And that's part of what I do professionally. I know a lot about that.) I am hopeful that 'Eoio and "The Famrel Family" and any other system that might emerge in the future will be creatively explored by anyone interested to the fullest on every orthographic axis that might become relevant to all of this as a function of artistic expression.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Well, have you tried 'Eoio at 10 points on Windows XP? The font hints are not very good, so XP's hinting makes some of the lines disproportionately big and the others disappear.

I'm not trying to bash 'Eoio here, sorry if I was misunderstood. As for whether Famrel/FamrelaWin is a reverse abugida, I suggest you look at Tibetan script. The vowels in the abugida are always put above and below the consonant as big diacritics like Famrel.

And for Chinese cursive script, the most cursive forms are for calligraphy, not reading. Nobody is supposed to be able to read them at any appreciable speed, and writing them in fact requires lots of training and is not fast at all:

I am born in China and I read and write Chinese characters all day but I still wouldn't imagine that those two messes are "草书"!

I think that a cursive form that uses simplified forms (like the Cyrillic cursive) clearly written would be better than trying to capture all the details of the glyphs in fast-moving brush strokes.